CAR_Public/140501.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 1, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 86

                             Headlines


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Removed "Brown" Class Suit C.D. California
AMAZON.COM INC: Five Suits Consolidated as Fulfillment Center MDL
AMERICAN VANGUARD: AMVAC Still Faces "Blanco" PI Suit in Del.
AMERICAN VANGUARD: No Ruling Yet in Suit v. Dole Food Over DBCP
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: No Discovery Yet in Texas Securities Lawsuit

APPLE INC: Agrees to Settle "No-Poach" Class Action
APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Sends Power Cord Settlement to District Court
ARKANSAS BEST: No New Appeal Filed in Suit Over NMFA Violations
BARCLAYS PLC: 2nd Cir. Reinstates Investors' Claim in LIBOR Suit
BLACKSTONE GROUP: May 19 Hearing on "Dahl" Certification Bid

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Court Approves $85MM Landmen Suit Settlement
BP PLC: Oil Spill Settlement Attracts Scam Artists
CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Acquisition by Mallinckrodt
CARTOON NETWORK: Illegally Disclosed Info of Users, Suit Says
CASTELFREDDO LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

CC-PALO ALTO: Accused of Taking Millions From Senior Citizens
CME GROUP: Removed "Langer" Suit to N.D. Illinois
COMMONWEALTH REIT: Briefing on Motion to Junk Stock Suit Complete
COOPER TIRE: Sued in Del. Over Failed Deal With Apollo Tyres
COOPER TIRE: Lawsuits Over Apollo Tyres Deal Consolidated

CR BARD: "Gutelius" Suit Transferred From N.D. Texas to N.D. Ohio
ECOLAB INC: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over FLSA Violations
ECOLAB INC: One Suit Over COREXIT Remains in Miss. Circuit Court
EQUIFAX INC: Court Appoints Interim Lead Counsel in FCRA Lawsuit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces "Henson" Suit Alleging RESPA Violations

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Expects to Shell Out $32MM for Ceridian Accord
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Court Finds No RESPA Violations in Illinois
FIRST CASH: "Concepcion" Order May Affect Arbitration Agreements
FIRST FINANCIAL: Settlement in Lawsuit Over Merger Now Approved
FIRST FINANCIAL: Settles Litigation by Savannah Bank Shareholders

FIRST FINANCIAL: Del. Court Approves Settlement in Investor Suit
FIRST FINANCIAL: Inks MoU to Settle Suit by Rational Strategies
FNB CORP: "Darr" Plaintiff Withdraws Suit Over BCSB Purchase
FOOD SAFETY: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Class Says
GALA APPLE: Suits Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages

GE SECURITY: Invaded Privacy of Class Members, Suit Claims
GOLDMAN SACHS: Banks Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: Units Still Face Suits Over GS&Co.-Related Deals
GOLDMAN SACHS: Wants to Appeal Certification of Suit v. GS&Co
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bank Wants to Junk Claims Over Litton Insurance

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bank Wants to Dismiss Claims in Home Program Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Certification Sought in Mass. Antitrust Lawsuit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Appeal v. Certification of N.Y. Stock Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Junk Suit Over MF Global Offerings Denied
GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeals Court Puts Gender Bias Suit in Arbitration

GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in Credit Derivatives Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bank Faces Lawsuit Over Aluminum Storage Business
GOLDMAN SACHS: Units Still Face Lawsuits Over Foreign Exchange
HARMAN INT'L: Ark. Retirees Appealed Dismissal of Securities Suit
H20 LANDSCAPE: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Premium Pay

HANGTIME INC: Sent Unsolicited and Text Messages, Suit Claims
HENRY RANCH: Sued by Texas Class to Vindicate Wrongful Discharge
LIVE NATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action in New Jersey
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Cal.
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Israeli Shareholder Litigation Stayed

MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Lawsuit Over Tel Aviv Delisting Withdrawn
MITSUBA CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit in Michigan Over Fan Motors
MIZU TEPPANYAKE: Faces Florida Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Suit
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Lawsuit Over "Price Fixing" in Canada

MURPHY OIL: Dismissed From Hot Fuel Lawsuits
NEW JERSEY: U.S. Attorney Subpoenas Materials in Bridgegate Probe
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Has Placed Illegal Calls, Suit Claims
NUCOR CORP: Still Faces Antitrust Lawsuit by Steel Purchasers
PACKAGING CORPORATION: Still Faces Price-Fixing Suit in Illinois

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces TCPA Violations MDL in Calif. Court
PVR PARTNERS: Inks Agreement to Settle Lawsuits Over Merger
RCS CAPITAL: Faces Lawsuit by Summit Shareholders Over Merger
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Files Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Dismissal, Venue Transfer Sought in "Hart" Suit

SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Labor Suit Accord Wins Prelim. Approval
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Fla. Overdraft Litigation Now in Discovery
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Pact in Ga. Overdraft Fees Suit Has Initial OK
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Settles Securities Action in Ga. for $11.8MM
TARGET CORP: Faces Suit in Minnesota Related to 2013 Data Breach

TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Court Approves $5MM Settlement in Labor Suit
UNITED BANCORP: Faces Suit in Mich. Over Old National Merger
UNITED PARCEL: Still Faces Claims by Franchisees Who Rebranded
UNITED PARCEL: Still Faces Suit in Ontario Over Brokerage Service
UNITED PARCEL: Objects to Denial of Motion to Junk Antitrust Suit

US AIRWAYS: Files Bid to Junk "Palkon" Merger Suit in Ariz. Court
VANGUARD NATURAL: Del. High Court Affirms Case Dismissal
VCA ANTECH: Still Faces "Duran" Suit by Veterinary Assistants
VCA ANTECH: Still Faces Lawsuit by Courier Services Providers


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Removed "Brown" Class Suit C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Alexander Brown, et al. v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al., Case No. 4:13-CV-05205-YGR, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-01242-GAF-VBK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randall Bruce Aiman-Smith, Esq.
          Carey A. James, Esq.
          Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
          Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
          7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1020
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 562-6800
          Facsimile: (510) 562-6830
          E-mail: ras.asm@gmail.com
                  caj1.asm@gmail.com
                  hallievonrock@yahoo.com
                  rwlm@asmlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alison B. Willard, Esq.
          Andrew Paul Frederick, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: awillard@morganlewis.com
                  afrederick@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Knueve, Esq.
          Daren S. Garcia, Esq.
          Michael J. Ball, Esq.
          VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          52 East Gay Street
          Columbus, OH 43216-1008
          Telephone: (614) 464-6387
          Facsimile: (614) 719-4808
          E-mail: maknueve@vorys.com
                  dsgarcia@vorys.com
                  mjball@vorys.com

               - and -

          Kathy H. Gao, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: kgao@morganlewis.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Five Suits Consolidated as Fulfillment Center MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled that the
actions pending in districts other than the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, are transferred to the
Western District of Kentucky, creating a litigation known as In
Re: Amazon.com, Inc., Fulfillment Center Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litigation, Case No. 3:14-md-02504-JGH
(MDL No. 2504).  The MDL is assigned to the Honorable John G.
Heyburn II for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The five actions are:

   -- Western District of Kentucky:

      * Kay Johnson, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 1:13-00153; and

      * Tina Vance, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 3:13-00765;

   -- District of Nevada:

      * Jesse Busk, et al. v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc.,
        et al., Case No. 2:10-01854; and

   -- Middle District of Tennessee:

      * Mary Davis v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 3:13-01091; and

      * Willetha Allison, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 3:14-00308.

The cases in this litigation primarily involve allegations that
Amazon.com and various staffing agencies violate federal and
state wage and hour laws by requiring workers at Amazon.com
warehouse "fulfillment centers" to pass through lengthy anti-
theft security screening after clocking out at the end of their
shifts, without compensation for that time.

The MDL Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          Scott P. Tift, Esq.
          Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON, LLC
          217 Second Avenue North
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  stift@barrettjohnston.com
                  shyatt@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
          KIRCHER SUETHOLZ & GRAYSON, LPA
          515 Park Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 636-4333
          Facsimile: (502) 636-4342
          E-mail: dave@unionsidelawyers.com

               - and -

          J. Chris Sanders, Esq.
          1228 E. Breckinridge Street
          Louisville, KY 40204
          Telephone: (502) 558-6337
          E-mail: csanders@chrissanderslaw.com

               - and -

          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          33 S. Sixth Street, Suite 4530
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                  tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  jyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN LAW FIRM
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: josh@thiermanlaw.com
                  info@thiermanlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Gilbride, Esq.
          Todd O'Malley, Esq.
          O'MALLEY & LANGAN, P.C.
          The O'Malley Lagan Building
          201 Franklin Avenue
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Telephone: (570) 344-2667
          E-mail: tgilbride@omalleylangan.com
                  tomalley@omalleylangan.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Berger, Esq.
          Rebecca Jane Roe, Esq.
          SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
          810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 622-8000
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2305
          E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com
                  roe@sgb-law.com

               - and -

          Ronald E. Johnson, Jr., Esq.
          SCHACHTER HENDY & JOHNSON, PSC
          909 Wright's Summit Parkway, Suite 210
          Ft. Wright, KY 41011
          Telephone: (859) 578-4444
          Facsimile: (859) 578-4440
          E-mail: rjohnson@pschachter.com

               - and -

          Senthia Santana, Esq.
          Steven R. Maher, Esq.
          MAHER LAW FIRM, PA
          631 W Morse Boulevard, Suite 200
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 839-0866
          E-mail: sdtowery@maherlawfirm.com
                  smaher@maherlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Spiller Kimmel, Esq.
          KIMMEL, CARTER, ROMAN & PELTZ
          56 West Main Street
          Fourth Floor, Plaza 273
          Newark, DE 19702
          Telephone: (302) 565-6100
          Facsimile: (302) 565-6101
          E-mail: LKimmel@kcrlaw.com

               - and -

          Jarrett J. Haskovec, Esq.
          Kaitlyn A. Redfield-Ortiz, Esq.
          Stanley Lubin, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
          349 N. Fourth Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 234-0008
          Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
          E-mail: jarrett@lubinandenoch.com
                  kaitlyn@lubinandenoch.com
                  stan@lubinandenoch.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES APC
          555 West Fifth Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 533-4160
          Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
          E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com

               - and -

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 399-3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com

               - and -

          James Jason Hill, Esq.
          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101-7920
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: jhill@ck-lawfirm.com
                  msinger@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Walter L. Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP PC
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (310) 234-5678
          Facsimile: (310) 652-2242
          E-mail: walter@whaines.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alison B. Willard, Esq.
          Rebecca D. Eisen, Esq.
          Sacha M. Steenhoek, Esq.
          Theresa Mak, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP (SAN FRANCISCO)
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          E-mail: awillard@morganlewis.com
                  reisen@morganlewis.com
                  ssteenhoek@morganlewis.com
                  tmak@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Colm F. Connolly, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1007 Orange Street, Suite 501
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 574-3000
          Facsimile: (302) 574-3001
          E-mail: cconnolly@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Joseph A. Nuccio, Esq.
          Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP - PRINCETON
          502 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540-6289
          Telephone: (609) 919-6659
          Facsimile: (609) 919-6701
          E-mail: jnuccio@morganlewis.com
                  rrosenblatt@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Puma, Esq.
          William O. Mandycz, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP - PHILADELPHIA
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5305
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: mpuma@morganlewis.com
                  wmandycz@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Chelsea D. Petersen, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Telephone: (206) 359-3993
          E-mail: cdpetersen@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Daniel Clayton Barr, Esq.
          Jill Louise Ripke, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          PO Box 400
          Phoenix, AZ 85001-0400
          Telephone: (602) 351-8085
          Facsimile: (602) 648-7085
          E-mail: DBarr@perkinscoie.com
                  jripke@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          John E. Anderson, Esq.
          Morris Reid Estes, Jr., Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          Fifth Third Center
          424 Church Street, Suite 1401
          Nashville, TN 37219-2392
          Telephone: (615) 244-6538
          E-mail: janderson@dickinsonwright.com
                  restes@dickinsonwright.com

               - and -

          Kathryn A. Quesenberry, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP - LOUISVILLE
          101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500
          Louisville, KY 40202-3197
          Telephone: (502) 581-8025
          Facsimile: (502) 581-8111
          E-mail: kathy.quesenberry@dinsmore.com

               - and -

          Scott M. Mahoney, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
          3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 950
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 252-3131
          Facsimile: (702) 252-7411
          E-mail: smahoney@laborlawyers.com

               - and -

          Ashley C. Workman, Esq.
          Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew Gagnon, Esq.
          Rebecca P. Bromet, Esq.
          Reema Kapur, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP - CHICAGO
          131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603-5577
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: aworkman@seyfarth.com
                  gmaatman@seyfarth.com
                  mgagnon@seyfarth.com
                  rbromet@seyfarth.com
                  rkapur@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          C. Eric Stevens, Esq.
          Rachel R. Rosenblatt, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC - NASHVILLE
          3200 West End Avenue, Suite 500
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 383-3033
          Facsimile: (615) 383-3323
          E-mail: estevens@littler.com
                  rrosenblatt@littler.com

               - and -

          Cory G. Walker, Esq.
          Rick D. Roskelley, Esq.
          Roger L. Grandgenett, II, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 300
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 862-8800
          Facsimile: (702) 862-8811
          E-mail: cgwalker@littler.com
                  rroskelley@littler.com
                  rgrandgenett@littler.com

               - and -

          J. Andrew Inman, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.S.C. - LEXINGTON
          333 West Vine Street, Suite 1620
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 317-7973
          Facsimile: (859) 201-1250
          E-mail: jinman@littler.com

               - and -

          Martha J. Keon, Esq.
          Sarah B. Fask, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC - PHILADELPHIA
          1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3000
          E-mail: mkeon@littler.com
                  sfask@littler.com

               - and -

          Neil M. Alexander, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          50 West Liberty St., Suite 400
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 348-4888
          Facsimile: (775) 786-0127
          E-mail: nalexander@littler.com

               - and -

          Peter D. Navarro, Esq.
          JACK, LYON & JONES
          11 Music Circle South, Suite 202
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (702) 921-2460
          Facsimile: (702) 921-2461
          E-mail: peter.navarro@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Andrew G. Madsen, Esq.
          Brent D. Knight, Esq.
          Michael Zuckerman, Esq.
          William F. Dolan, Esq.
          JONES DAY - CHICAGO
          77 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-1692
          Telephone: (312) 269-4084
          Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
          E-mail: amadsen@jonesday.com
                  bdknight@jonesday.com
                  mzuckerman@jonesday.com
                  wdolan@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Cindi Lynn Ritchey, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 South Flower Street 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300
          Telephone: (213) 489-3939
          Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
          E-mail: critchey@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth S. Muyskens, Esq.
          Richard G. Griffith, Esq.
          STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC - LEXINGTON
          300 West Vine Street, Suite 2100
          Lexington, KY 40507-1801
          Telephone: (859) 231-3000
          Facsimile: (859) 253-1093
          E-mail: elizabeth.muyskens@skofirm.com
                  richard.griffith@skofirm.com

               - and -

          K. Coe Heard, Esq.
          Robert Earl Boston, Esq.
          WALLER, LANSDEN, DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP (NASHVILLE)
          Nashville City Center
          511 Union Street, Suite 2700
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 850-8864
          Facsimile: (615) 244-2804
          E-mail: coe.heard@wallerlaw.com
                  bob.boston@wallerlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas Matthew Brennan, Esq.
          MCKAY CHADWELL
          600 University Street, Suite 1601
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 233-2800
          Facsimile: (206) 233-2809
          E-mail: tmb@mckay-chadwell.com


AMERICAN VANGUARD: AMVAC Still Faces "Blanco" PI Suit in Del.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Blanco v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation et al. remains
pending in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, according
to American Vanguard Corporation's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On or about July 21, 2011, an action encaptioned, Blanco v. AMVAC
Chemical Corporation et al., was filed with the Superior Court of
the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County (No. N11C-07-
149 JOH) on behalf of an individual plaintiff, residing in Costa
Rica, against several defendants, including, among others, AMVAC,
The Dow Chemical Company, Occidental Chemical Corporation, and
Dole Food Company. In the action, plaintiff claims personal
injury (sterility) arising from the alleged exposure to DBCP
between 1979 and 1980 while working as a contract laborer in a
banana plantation in Costa Rica. Defendant Dow filed a motion to
dismiss the action as being barred under the applicable statute
of limitations, as this same plaintiff filed the same claim in
Florida in 1995 and subsequently withdrew the matter. Plaintiff
contends that the statute of limitations was tolled by a prior
motion for class certification, which was denied.

On August 8, 2012, the court denied Dow's motion to dismiss based
upon applicable statutes of limitation. In response to that
denial, on August 20, 2012, defendants filed a motion for
interlocutory appeal and, on September 18, 2012, the Delaware
Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal on the question of
whether the State of Delaware will recognize cross jurisdictional
tolling (that is, whether it is proper for a Delaware court to
follow the class action tolling of another jurisdiction, in this
case, Texas, rather than its own two year statute of
limitations). On June 10, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court denied
the appeal and upheld the lower court ruling, holding that it was
proper to extend the class action tolling exception to cross-
jurisdictional class action cases. Thus, Blanco remains pending.
AMVAC contends that the plaintiff could not have been exposed to
any DBCP supplied by AMVAC in Costa Rica and intends to defend
the matter vigorously. The Company does not believe that a loss
is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a
loss contingency for the matter.


AMERICAN VANGUARD: No Ruling Yet in Suit v. Dole Food Over DBCP
---------------------------------------------------------------
The court in Hawaii has not ruled on any of the pending motions
in suits against Dole Food Company, alleging damages sustained
from injuries to banana workers exposed to DBCP, according to
American Vanguard Corporation's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In October 1997, AMVAC was served with two complaints in which it
was named as a defendant, filed in the Circuit Court, First
Circuit, State of Hawaii and in the Circuit Court of the Second
Circuit, State of Hawaii (two identical suits) entitled
Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, et. al ("Patrickson
Case") alleging damages sustained from injuries (including
sterility) to banana workers caused by plaintiffs' exposure to
DBCP while applying the product in their native countries. Other
named defendants include: Dole Food Company, Shell Oil Company
and Dow Chemical Company. The ten named plaintiffs are variously
citizens of four countries -- Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and
Ecuador. Punitive damages are sought against each defendant. The
case was also filed as a class action on behalf of other workers
allegedly so exposed in these four countries.

After several years of law and motion activity, Dow filed a
motion for summary adjudication as to the remaining plaintiffs
based on the statute of limitations, as they had filed suit in
Florida in 1995. All defendants joined in this motion. The court
granted this motion on June 9, 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel
unsuccessfully argued that their claims were tolled by prior
class action cases. On November 30, 2009, the court denied a
motion for reconsideration. Judgment in favor of the defendants
was entered on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal, which is presently pending. In March
2011, Dow filed a brief in opposition to the appeal, arguing that
plaintiffs are barred from this action by the applicable statute
of limitations. Following the completion of briefing on April 8,
2011, counsel for plaintiffs filed a pleading to withdraw and to
substitute new counsel. The court has not ruled on any of the
pending motions, nor do the court rules require that the court
rule by any particular date.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: No Discovery Yet in Texas Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has not yet commenced in a consolidated securities suit
against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, according
to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

Two separate class action complaints were filed in June and
August 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of purported purchasers of the Company's
stock between June 9, 2009, and June 12, 2010, against Anadarko
and certain of its officers. The complaints allege causes of
action arising pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for purported misstatements and omissions regarding, among other
things, the Company's liability related to the Deepwater Horizon
events. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees
and costs.

In November 2010, the New York District Court consolidated the
two cases. In March 2012, the New York District Court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division (Texas
District Court). In May 2012, the Texas District Court granted
the defendants' motion to transfer the consolidated action within
the district to Judge Keith P. Ellison. In July 2012, the
plaintiffs filed their First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. The defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss in
the Texas District Court in September 2012. In July 2013, the
Texas District Court dismissed the claims relating to all but one
of the alleged misstatements asserted in the plaintiffs'
complaint. The Texas District Court gave the plaintiffs 30 days
to amend the complaint to attempt to rehabilitate the claims that
were dismissed. The plaintiffs declined to amend the complaint.
The Company filed its answer to the complaint in September 2013.
The parties have not commenced discovery.


APPLE INC: Agrees to Settle "No-Poach" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that one month
shy of trial, Google Inc., Apple Inc., Intel Corp. and Adobe
Systems Inc. have reached a settlement with workers who accused
the tech giants of conspiring to drive down wages by not hiring
each other's employees.

Counsel for both sides reported the resolution on April 24 in a
joint letter to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, but did not reveal
the settlement's price tag.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein partner Kelly Dermody and
Joseph Saveri of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm signed the letter on
behalf of plaintiffs, and Google attorney Robert Van Nest of
Keker & Van Nest signed on behalf of defendants.

"We felt like we achieved an excellent result," Ms. Dermody said
in an interview. "And because of that, it seemed time to resolve
the case."

Keker & Van Nest deferred questions to a Google spokesman, who
declined comment.

In an emailed statement, Adobe denied its recruiting policies
diminished competition.  "Nevertheless, we have elected to settle
this matter in order to avoid the uncertainties, cost and
distraction of litigation," the statement reads.  "We don't
expect the settlement to have a material impact on Adobe's
financials."

The settlement puts an end to three years of litigation that
tarnished some of Silicon Valley's most prominent CEOs and pit a
team of aggressive Bay Area plaintiffs lawyers against a deep
bench of defense firms.

In addition to Keker & Van Nest, Google turned to Mayer Brown.
O'Melveny & Myers represents Apple; Jones Day is counsel to
Adobe; and Munger Tolles & Olson is defending Intel.

Ms. Dermody's team alleged the conspiracy to suppress employee
movement cost workers more than $3 billion in lost wages and rose
to the highest levels at companies like Apple and Google.  Top
tech executives, including Google cofounder Sergey Brin and
former Intel CEO Paul Otellini, candidly discussed their no-hire
agreements in dozens of emails referenced in the court record.
There were snarky missives sent to executives who violated the
agreements, and apologetic replies.  One email chain described
the firing of a Google recruiter who made the mistake of
contacting an Apple employee -- a response that prompted a smiley
face emoticon from late Apple cofounder and CEO Steve Jobs.  In
another email exchange, Google executives decided to scrap plans
to open an engineering office in Paris because Jobs didn't give
the OK to hire former Apple employees.

The case, which followed on the heels of a U.S. Department of
Justice investigation, was filed in May 2011 by a Lucasfilm Ltd.
software engineer.  It accused seven tech companies of
establishing so-called no-poach agreements.  In October, Judge
Koh certified a class of more than 60,000 skilled employees.

Lucasfilm, Pixar Animation Studios Inc. and Intuit Inc. settled
last year for a combined $20 million.  The terms of the latest
deal are expected to be disclosed to the court by May 27.

Ms. Dermody declined to comment on what factors led to the
settlement, but said the decision fell within the window of time
where trial is just close enough to motivate a resolution.  Both
sides were scheduled to release their witness lists on April 24
in anticipation of next month's trial.

"I think we all look forward to a trial," Ms. Saveri said.  "But
we were able to achieve a fair result for the class."

The two sides worked with mediator Layn Phillips, a former
federal judge and current Irell & Manella partner in Newport
Beach.  Last month, Ms. Dermody told Judge Koh discussions with
the defense were ongoing and active, and if anyone could help
them reach a settlement, it would be Phillips.

"Certainly the mediator is tremendously talented," Ms. Dermody
said on April 24, "and sometimes you need to have someone like
that in the mix."

It still seems surreal, she added, to close the door on such a
prominent case.

"When you work on a case for as long and as hard as we have on
this one, it's like a family member on some level," she said.
"You're very attached to it.  So the idea of having closure or
saying goodbye is bittersweet for that reason."


APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Sends Power Cord Settlement to District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that a class
action settlement over Apple laptop power adapters has been sent
back to federal district court for reconsideration of a $3.1
million fee award.

A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel unanimously
vacated the settlement on April 24, saying former U.S. District
Judge James Ware had failed to properly evaluate it for possible
self-dealing between class counsel and Apple Inc.

"We do not intend to direct the district court toward a
particular result," the court stated in an unpublished per curiam
opinion. "We request only that the court demonstrate that it was
'particularly vigilant' in monitoring for self-dealing and
implicit collusion."

The court also ruled that Judge Ware had overstepped by ordering
five objectors to post a collective $75,000 in bonds as a
condition of appealing.  Ware retired from the Northern District
bench in 2012. The case will be heard by a different judge on
remand.

San Diego-based Zeldes & Haeggquist and Washington, D.C.'s Mehri
& Skalet sued Apple in 2009 over magnetic power adapters that
Apple acknowledged had a tendency to fray.  The settlement called
for the company to extend an existing replacement program and to
refund between $35 and $79 to consumers who had already paid for
a new adapter.

Theodore Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness argued on
appeal that Judge Ware "rubber-stamped" a deal that was
structured to obscure actual relief.  Class counsel argued it had
obtained actual cash refunds for consumers, while Apple stressed
that Judge Ware had participated actively in a settlement
fairness hearing.

The Ninth Circuit agreed mostly with Frank, ruling in In re
Magsafe Apple Power Adapter Litigation that Judge Ware had failed
to set out specific reasons for approving the fee award, which
had included a 1.5 multiplier.  "We emphasize that Apple's
advance agreement to pay class counsel up to $3 million in
attorneys' fees and $100,000 in expenses 'cannot relieve the
district court of its duty to assess fully the reasonableness of
the fee request,'" the court stated, quoting from In re Bluetooth
Headsets Product Liability Litigation,

Judge Ware had conducted the fairness hearing before the claims
period closed, so there was no way for the Ninth Circuit to
estimate how many claims had been filed and how much Apple
actually paid out.  "On remand," the court stated, "the district
court may find it useful to elicit this information so that it
can compare the amount recovered by the class with the amount
claimed by class counsel," the court stated.

The court also held the appellate bonds -- $15,000 for each of
the five objectors -- were inappropriately pegged to the parties'
expected attorney fees on appeal, rather than costs.  "These
costs rarely exceed a few hundred dollars when taxed against an
appellant," the court stated.

The opinion was signed by Judges Barry Silverman, William
Fletcher and Jay Bybee.


ARKANSAS BEST: No New Appeal Filed in Suit Over NMFA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABF Freight System, Inc. elected not to pursue additional appeals
in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Western Division of Arkansas alleging violation of the National
Master Freight Agreement and the case is now concluded, according
to Arkansas Best Corporation's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On November 1, 2010, ABF Freight System, Inc. filed a grievance
with the National Grievance Committee, consisting of union and
employer representatives established by the NMFA for resolving
national contract disputes, against the following parties: the
IBT; the Teamsters National Freight Industry Negotiating
Committee; Trucking Management, Inc. ("TMI"); every Teamster
Local Union that is party to the NMFA; and YRC Inc., New Penn
Motor Express, Inc., and USF Holland, Inc. (collectively "YRC").
A lawsuit was simultaneously filed in the United States District
Court for the Western Division of Arkansas (the "Trial Court")
against the parties previously named and Teamster Local Unions
373 and 878 individually and as representatives of a class of
Teamsters Local Unions that are parties to the NMFA.  The lawsuit
sought appointment of a third-party neutral tribunal to rule on
the grievance in place of the National Grievance Committee or,
alternatively, for the Trial Court to rule on the lawsuit. ABF
Freight System, Inc. claimed in these proceedings that the IBT
and the other named parties violated the NMFA by granting certain
wage and other concessions to YRC but not to ABF. The lawsuit was
initially dismissed by the Trial Court on December 20, 2010 and
then reinstated by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit (St. Louis) (the "Court of Appeals") on April 12,
2011. On July 6, 2011, the Court of Appeals reversed the Trial
Court's decision and remanded the case to the Trial Court for
further proceedings. On August 1, 2012, the Trial Court dismissed
the lawsuit for a second time. ABF Freight System, Inc. appealed
the dismissal to the Court of Appeals, but on August 30, 2013,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's decision to
dismiss the lawsuit. ABF elected not to pursue additional appeals
and the lawsuit is now concluded.


BARCLAYS PLC: 2nd Cir. Reinstates Investors' Claim in LIBOR Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, reports that plaintiffs
alleging the belated revelation that Barclays bank overstated its
creditworthiness in submitting information on borrowing costs to
LIBOR had their claim reinstated on April 25.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said it had been
premature for a district judge to dismiss claims brought by
aggrieved stockholders who saw Barclays American Depository
Shares drop 12 percent on the 2012 admission that the bank had
submitted lending rates to LIBOR that were false from 2007 to
2009.

The bank had claimed the misrepresentations were "stale" by the
time of the disclosure and Southern District Judge Shira
Scheindlin agreed when she dismissed the shareholder claims in
2013.  Judge Scheindlin found a temporal "disconnect" between the
false submissions and the revelations three years later, and thus
concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to plead loss causation.

On April 25, the circuit upheld Judge Scheindlin's dismissal of
claims based on Barclays statements about maintaining "minimal
control requirements" at the bank but vacated her dismissal on
loss causation in Carpenters Pension Trust Fund of St. Louis v.
Barclays PLC, 13-2678.

Judges Robert Katzmann, Jose Cabranes and Southern District Judge
Richard Berman, sitting by designation, made that decision after
hearing oral argument on Feb. 14.  Judge Berman wrote for the
court.

The plaintiffs alleged the bank and several of its former
officers understated its borrowing costs by submitting false
information to the benchmark LIBOR (the London Interbank Offering
Rate), including a comment by then-bank President Robert Diamond
in a 2008 conference call that Barclays was "categorically not
paying higher rates in any currency."

But on June 27, 2012, the manipulation of the data was disclosed
in a settlement and non-prosecution agreement among Barclays and
prosecutors and regulators in the United States and United
Kingdom. As part of the settlement, the bank had to admit to
underreporting its perceptions of its borrowing costs and agreed
to pay $450 million in fines.

The next day, the bank's stock price dropped 12 percent and
investor pension funds followed by filing suit in the Southern
District, where Barclays is also the target, along with 37 other
banks, of a U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation lawsuit
alleging the banks "fraudulently and collusively suppressed" the
U.S. dollar LIBOR rate from August 2007 to at least mid-2011.

Judge Scheindlin dismissed the investors lawsuit on May 13, 2013,
finding that alleged internal control misrepresentations were
mere "puffery," and the investors had failed to show loss
causation.

Judge Scheindlin wrote that it was implausible that an efficient
market "would fail to digest three years of non-fraudulent
Submission Rates and other more detailed financial information,
and would instead leave intact artificial inflation as a result
of fraudulent Submission Rates" from 2007-2009.

In his opinion on April 25, Judge Berman said the plaintiffs had
alleged losses stemming from the "corrective disclosure" of the
fraud and it was their burden, ultimately, to prove that the
market reacted negatively to that disclosure.

But, he said, "plaintiffs need not demonstrate on a motion to
dismiss that the corrective disclosure was the only possible
cause for the decline in the stock price," he said.

Without making any determinations about the strength of the
plaintiffs' claims, he said the lower court reached its
conclusions "prematurely."

"The complaint plausibly alleges that submission rates are
non-cumulative -- that is, that each day's submission rates
reveal information about a bank's borrowing costs for that
particular day," he said.  "Thus, while Barclays's 2009-2012
submission rates may have provided accurate information about the
company's borrowing costs and financial condition for the period
2009-2012, they did not correct the earlier year's
misstatements."

Judge Berman said the court could not conclude "as a matter of
law and without discovery, that any artificial inflation of
Barclays's stock price after January 2009 was resolved by an
efficient market prior to June 27, 2012."

"The efficient market hypothesis, premised on the speed
(efficiency) with which new information is incorporated into the
price of a stock, does not tell us how long the inflationary
effects of an uncorrected misrepresentation remain reflected in
the price of a security," he said.

Susan Alexander -- salexander@rgrdlaw.com -- partner at Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, argued for the plaintiffs.

Jeffrey Scott -- scottj@sullcrom.com -- partner at Sullivan &
Cromwell, argued for Barclays.  The bank declined comment.

Cheryl Krause, partner at Dechert, argued for Diamond.  Ms.
Krause is awaiting a vote by the full U.S. Senate on her
nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: May 19 Hearing on "Dahl" Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on plaintiffs' class certification motion in Kirk Dahl,
et al. v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, et al. pending in the
United States District Court in Massachusetts will take place
after May 19, 2014, according to The Blackstone Group L.P.'s Feb.
28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public
companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a
lawsuit against a number of private equity firms and investment
banks, including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States
District Court in Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain
Capital Partners, LLC, et al.). The suit alleges that, from mid-
2003 through 2007, eleven defendants violated the antitrust laws
by allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of
private equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts. After the
conclusion of discovery, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in June 2012, in which the plaintiffs sought damages on
behalf of public shareholders that tendered their shares in
connection with 17 leveraged buyouts. In March 2013, the court
denied defendants' joint motion for summary judgment and all but
one individual motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs'
overarching conspiracy claim but narrowed the scope of
plaintiffs' allegations. Consequently, the number of transactions
for which plaintiffs are seeking damages has been reduced from 17
to eight transactions. The court has previously dismissed claims
against Blackstone with respect to three of these eight
transactions because Blackstone was released from any and all
claims by the same shareholders in prior litigation. In July
2013, the court denied all but two defendants' renewed individual
motions for summary judgment, and in August 2013, the court
granted another defendant's motion for reconsideration and
ordered summary judgment in favor of that defendant (there remain
seven defendants, including Blackstone). In July 2013, the court
also denied the motion by Blackstone and three other defendants
for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim of a conspiracy with
respect to the Hospital Corporation of America (HCA). On October
21, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and
defendants filed an opposition to that motion on January 24,
2014. A hearing on plaintiffs' class certification motion will
take place after May 19, 2014. The Court has directed that new
summary judgment motions be filed by August 1, 2014. Any trial of
the action is scheduled to begin in early November 2014.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Court Approves $85MM Landmen Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The $85,000,000 settlement of Landmen Partners Inc. v. The
Blackstone Group L.P., et al. was approved and the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a
final judgment dismissing the case, according to Blackstone's
Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In the spring of 2008, six substantially identical complaints
were brought against Blackstone and some of its executive
officers purporting to be class actions on behalf of purchasers
of common units in Blackstone's June 2007 initial public
offering. These suits were subsequently consolidated into one
complaint (Landmen Partners Inc. v. The Blackstone Group L.P., et
al.) filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York in October 2008 against Blackstone, Stephen
A. Schwarzman (Blackstone's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer), Peter G. Peterson (Blackstone's former Senior
Chairman), Hamilton E. James (Blackstone's President and Chief
Operating Officer) and Michael A. Puglisi (Blackstone's Chief
Financial Officer at the time of the IPO). The amended complaint
alleged that (1) the IPO prospectus was false and misleading for
failing to disclose that (a) one private equity investment would
be adversely affected by trends in mortgage default rates,
particularly for sub-prime mortgage loans, (b) another private
equity investment was adversely affected by the loss of an
exclusive manufacturing agreement, and (c) prior to the IPO the
U.S. real estate market had started to deteriorate, adversely
affecting the value of Blackstone's real estate investments; and
(2) the financial statements in the IPO prospectus were
materially inaccurate principally because they overstated the
value of the investments referred to in clause (1).

In September 2009 the District Court judge dismissed the
complaint with prejudice, ruling that even if the allegations in
the complaint were assumed to be true, the alleged omissions were
immaterial. Analyzing both quantitative and qualitative factors,
the District Court reasoned that the alleged omissions were
immaterial as a matter of law given the size of the investments
at issue relative to Blackstone as a whole, and taking into
account Blackstone's structure as an asset manager and financial
advisory firm.

In February 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's decision, ruling that the District
Court incorrectly found that plaintiffs' allegations were, if
true, immaterial as a matter of law. The Second Circuit disagreed
with the District Court, concluding that the complaint
"plausibly" alleged that the initial public offering documents
omitted material information concerning two of Blackstone funds'
individual investments and inadequately disclosed information
relating to market risks to their real estate investments.
Because this was a motion to dismiss, in reaching this decision
the Second Circuit accepted all of the complaint's factual
allegations as true and drew every reasonable inference in
plaintiffs' favor. The Second Circuit did not consider facts
other than those in the plaintiffs' complaint. On June 28, 2011,
defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court, which was subsequently denied. On
August 8, 2011, defendants filed their answer to the complaint
and discovery commenced. The parties completed factual discovery
on March 29, 2013 and expert discovery on May 10, 2013. Briefing
on defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the
case was completed on June 21, 2013 and oral argument was held on
August 14, 2013. On August 14, 2013, the District Court certified
a class pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.

On August 28, 2013, the parties executed a settlement agreement
and plaintiffs filed a motion for approval of the settlement
agreement. On August 30, 2013, the District Court preliminarily
approved the settlement agreement and ordered notice of the
settlement be sent to class members. The settlement agreement
provides for a payment to the class of $85,000,000. The
settlement payment was covered by insurance and did not have a
material effect on the company's financial condition or results
of operations. On December 18, 2013, the settlement was approved
and the Court entered a final judgment dismissing the case. The
company considers the matter closed.


BP PLC: Oil Spill Settlement Attracts Scam Artists
--------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded four years ago in
the Gulf of Mexico, hundreds of South Florida residents paid the
nonprofit Noula Inc. $300 each, mostly to process claims for
wages they said were lost to the oil spill.  But a Miami jury
last year agreed with federal prosecutors that the claims were
scams.  They convicted Noula's president, Jean Mari Lindor, of 40
counts including identity theft and mail and wire fraud.

"These people would never actually see what was filed on their
behalf," Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Watts-Fitzgerald said of
Mr. Lindor's victims.  "Some had no idea what he was doing."

Mr. Lindor is one of dozens of individuals charged with or
convicted of filing fraudulent claims for oil-spill damages.  In
his case, the government put on evidence that Mr. Lindor filed
claims using fake tax and employment documents.

BP PLC, which has bankrolled payments to victims, has been more
than vocal about what it considers massive fraud in the
distribution of claims.  In February, it launched a rolling
"Fraud Tally" on its Web site, www.thestateofthegulf.com, which
estimates the total dollar value of claims made by individuals
criminally charged with, or convicted of, fraud.  As of April 23,
that tally totaled more than $9.3 million. (The settlement fund
is $9.2 billion.) "While BP remains committed to paying all
legitimate claims, the company did not agree to pay for
fictitious losses, or for claims that are based on fraud or
tainted by corruption," BP says on its site.

According to BP's latest numbers, which include both federal and
state prosecutions, 136 individuals have been charged and 122
convicted of fraud associated with the spill.  It's unclear from
BP's records whether those numbers overlap.

Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr, in an email to The
National Law Journal, said 202 individuals had been charged in an
effort led by its Disaster Fraud Task Force, which handles fraud
related to disasters.  Those numbers include only federal cases.
Many defendants have been restaurant and hotel workers who
claimed lost wages.  Most have pleaded guilty to mail or wire
fraud.  Their sentences have varied -- often a few years of
probation, but sometimes prison for more than a year. In nearly
every case, judges ordered payment of restitution.

                          Standout Cases

But a few cases stand out, and BP's website appears to focus on
them.  For example, a Massachusetts man, Robert Zygarowski,
pleaded guilty in 2012 to faking his own death and inventing a
son to pursue a $130,000 claim. He was sentenced to two years in
prison.  Duane Montgomery, a onetime mayoral and congressional
candidate from Detroit, drew 15 years in prison after a federal
jury convicted him of filing a bogus claim for hundreds of
thousands of dollars that he maintained his pollution-monitoring
business lost when tar balls destroyed his boat's engines in the
Gulf.  In Mississippi, Joseph Anthony Clements drew four years
and five months in prison following his guilty plea to filing a
$273,000 claim for lost profits from his commercial shrimp and
fishing business.  Mr. Clements, however, wasn't a commercial
shrimper.  Both Messrs. Montgomery and Clements have filed
notices of plans to appeal their convictions.  U.S. District
Judge K. Michael Moore sentenced Mr. Lindor, Noula's president,
to spend nearly 24 years in prison and pay almost $1.9 million in
restitution.

Mr. Lindor is appealing his conviction to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  His trial attorney, Ken Swartz
of Swartz Law Firm in Miami, blamed the fictitious claims on
certain employees and volunteers who worked at the center.  He
also questioned why the alleged victims who got claims money were
never charged.

"One person is paying the price when there were others -- either
people who received money who made claims that never should have
gotten the money, or other people who assisted in this whole
thing," he said.  It is unclear how many, if any, criminal cases
have involved claims against BP's settlement fund, versus the
Gulf Coast Claims Facility, the $20 billion fund set up by BP but
administered independently by attorney Kenneth Feinberg.  After
BP reached its settlement in 2012, U.S. District Judge Carl
Barbier in New Orleans appointed Patrick Juneau to administer the
payouts, superseding Mr. Feinberg's duties.  BP has accused Mr.
Juneau of awarding money to businesses that suffered no damages,
and Barbier appointed a special master, former FBI director Louis
Freeh, to investigate. Carr, the Justice Department spokesman,
said fraud investigations are continuing, whether they involve
the settlement fund or the claims facility.

Mr. Feinberg, founder of Washington's Feinberg Rozen, defended
his administration of his fund, noting that he sent only 4,000 of
the 1.2 million claims received to the Justice Department for
potential prosecution.

"Nothing can undercut the credibility of any claims program more
than fraud," he wrote in an email to the NLJ.


CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Acquisition by Mallinckrodt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces several lawsuits in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware arising from its pending
acquisition by Mallinckrodt plc, according to Cadence's Feb. 28,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Following the February 11, 2014, announcement that the company
had entered into an agreement and plan of merger with
Mallinckrodt and Merger Sub, six putative class-action lawsuits
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware:
Wolfson v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 9341-VCP
(filed February 12, 2014); Goode v. Garner, et al., No. 9361-VCP
(filed February 18, 2014); Bushansky v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals
Inc., et al., No. 9365-VCP (filed February 19, 2014); Bokol v.
Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., No. 9367 (filed February
19, 2014); Elvir v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., No.
9370-VCP (filed February 19, 2014); and Nguyen v. Cadence
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 9376-VCP (filed February 21,
2014). Two substantially identical putative class-action lawsuits
were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego: Denny v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 37-
2014-00002579-CU-BT-CTL (filed February 13, 2014) and Militello
v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 37-00003634-CU-BT-
CTL (filed February 20, 2014). The complaints allege that members
of the company's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the company's stockholders in connection with the
proposed transaction and that the merger agreement involves an
unfair price, an inadequate sales process, and unreasonable deal
protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers.
The complaints other than Bushansky further allege that the
company, Mallinckrodt, and/or Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The lawsuits seek an
injunction against the consummation of the merger and rescission
of the merger agreement to the extent the merger may already be
consummated prior to the entry of the court's final judgment, and
an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts'
fees.


CARTOON NETWORK: Illegally Disclosed Info of Users, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ellis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Cartoon Network, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00484-TWT (N.D. Ga., February 19, 2014) seeks to
put an end to the Company's alleged unlawful practice of
disclosing its users' sensitive information and to obtain redress
for the conduct.

The Cartoon Network, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  Cartoon Network produces a
variety of mostly animated television programming.  Cartoon
Network also offers media to consumers via other mediums,
including on mobile devices like Android smartphones through its
proprietary mobile software application, the Cartoon Network App.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          James Dominick Larry, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 North LaSalle Drive
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 598-6370
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  nlarry@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
          THE JORDAN FIRM, LLC
          1447 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 880
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873-4720
          Facsimile: (404) 872-3745
          E-mail: jennifer@thejordanfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alan Bakowski, Esq.
          James Andrew Lamberth, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP-ATL
          Bank of America Plaza, Suite 5200
          600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 885-2578
          E-mail: alan.bakowski@troutmansanders.com
                  james.lamberth@troutmansanders.com


CASTELFREDDO LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nathacha Behrens, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Castelfreddo LLC, d/b/a Tutti Frutti, Castel Dolce LLC, d/b/a
Tutti Frutti, Maurizio Nardi and Carmelo G. Follo, individually,
Case No. 1:14-cv-20622-CMA (S.D. Fla., February 19, 2014) seeks
to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws
of the United States.

Castelfreddo LLC, doing business as Tutti Frutti, and Castel
Dolce LLC, doing business as Tutti Frutti, are Florida
corporations.  The Individual Defendants are directors or owners
of the Defendant Corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marlene Quintana, Esq.
          GRAYROBINSON, P.A.
          1221 Brickell Ave., Suite 1650
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 416-6880
          Facsimile: (305) 416-6887
          E-mail: marlene.quintana@gray-robinson.com


CC-PALO ALTO: Accused of Taking Millions From Senior Citizens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Burton Richter, an individual; Linda Collins Cork, an individual;
Georgia L. May, an individual; Thomas Merigan, an individual;
Alfred Spivack, an individual; and Janice R. Anderson, an
individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. CC-Palo Alto, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Classic
Residence Management Limited Partnership, an Illinois limited
partnership; and CC-Development Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-00750-EJD (N.D. Cal., February 19,
2014) alleges that the Defendants have taken hundreds of millions
of dollars from a group of vulnerable senior citizens, deprived
them of their security, and placed much of their lifetime savings
at risk.

The Plaintiffs are senior citizens, who carefully planned for
retirement, diligently saved money to pay for retirement, and who
chose to spend the last years of their lives at the Vi at Palo
Alto -- one of the most desirable retirement communities in the
country.  The Proposed Class consists of all individuals, who
resided at the Vi at Palo Alto between January 1, 2005, and the
present.

CC-Palo Alto is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates the
continuing care retirement community known as the Vi at Palo
Alto.  CC-Chicago is CC-Palo Alto's parent company, and is also a
Delaware corporation.  Classic Residence Management Limited
Partnership is a subsidiary of CC-Chicago, and is also based in
Chicago, Illinois.  CRMLP provides the day-to-day management and
operation at the Vi at Palo Alto and sets its budgets with input
from CC-Chicago.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Niall P. McCarthy, Esq.
          Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
          Demetrius X. Lambrinos, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 692-3606
          E-mail: nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
                  amurphy@cpmlegal.com
                  dlambrinos@cpmlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James McManis, Esq.
          Hilary Lauren Weddell, Esq.
          MCMANIS FAULKNER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          50 W. San Fernando Street, 10th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 279-8700
          Facsimile: (408) 279-3244
          E-mail: jmcmanis@mcmanislaw.com
                  hweddell@mcmanislaw.com


CME GROUP: Removed "Langer" Suit to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Langer, et al. v. CME Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2014CH829, was removed from the Circuit
Court for Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01240 to the proceeding.

The complaint seeks, among other things, damages based on the
alleged lost lease revenues, lost profits and diminution in the
value of the Plaintiffs' memberships resulting from the
Defendants' alleged breach of their contractual obligations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1201 3rd Ave., Suite 3800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 446-1199
          E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Stephen D. Susman, Esq.
          Robert S. Safi, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 651-9366
          E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com
                  rsafi@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Trevor Porter Stutz, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3104
          E-mail: tstutz@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Suyash Agrawal, Esq.
          Jeannie Young Evans, Esq.
          AGRAWAL EVANS LLP
          308 West Erie Street, Suite 502
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 448-8800
          Facsimile: (312) 445-9949
          E-mail: suyash@agrawalevans.com
                  jeannie@agrawalevans.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Albert Lee Hogan, III, Esq.
          Brian Sully Wallach, Esq.
          Jerrold E. Salzman, Esq.
          Marcella Louise Lape, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
          155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60606-1720
          Telephone: (312) 407-0700
          E-mail: ahogan@skadden.com
                  brian.wallach@skadden.com
                  jesalzma@skadden.com
                  marcella.lape@skadden.com

               - and -

          Matthew M.K. Stein, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          500 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 573-4800
          E-mail: matthew.stein@skadden.com


COMMONWEALTH REIT: Briefing on Motion to Junk Stock Suit Complete
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the suit Young v. CommonWealth REIT, Case No.
1:12-cv-12405-DJC has completed briefing on the motion to dismiss
the case, , according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On December 27, 2012, David Young filed a putative federal
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, or the Massachusetts District
Court, titled Young v. CommonWealth REIT, Case No. 1:12-cv-12405-
DJC, or the Young Action. The Young Action is brought on behalf
of purchasers of the company's common shares between January 10,
2012 and August 8, 2012, and alleges securities fraud claims
against CWH and certain of the company's officers under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges generally that CWH violated the
federal securities laws by making false and misleading
representations about the company's business, operations and
management. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus counsel
fees and expenses. On January 22, 2013, CWH moved to dismiss the
Young Action on the grounds that the claims asserted (1) are
subject to binding arbitration under the company's bylaws, and
(2) fail to state a claim for relief under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The company also filed
a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration
Association, or AAA. On February 25, 2013, Mr. Young filed a
motion to appoint him as lead plaintiff and his counsel as lead
counsel, which the Massachusetts District Court granted on May
20, 2013, all in accordance with customary procedures for
purported class action litigation. On July 22, 2013, Mr. Young
filed an amended complaint. On September 20, 2013, the company
filed an opening brief in support of the company's motion to
dismiss, and the parties completed briefing on the motion on
December 3, 2013.


COOPER TIRE: Sued in Del. Over Failed Deal With Apollo Tyres
------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company faces a shareholder lawsuit over the
terminated plan to be acquired by subsidiaries of Apollo Tyres
Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On January 17, 2014, alleged stockholders of the Company filed a
putative class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware relating to the terminated Apollo
transaction. That lawsuit, captioned OFI Risk Arbitrages, et al.
v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 1:14-cv-00068-LPS,
generally alleges that the Company and certain officers violated
the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly misleading
disclosures in connection with the terminated transaction and
seeks, among other things, damages. The Company and its officers
believe that the allegations against them lack merit and intend
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


COOPER TIRE: Lawsuits Over Apollo Tyres Deal Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits over the terminated plan to sell Cooper Tire & Rubber
Company to wholly owned subsidiaries of Apollo Tyres Ltd. were
consolidated as In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. Stockholders
Litigation, No. 8658-VCL, according to the company's Feb. 28,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On June 17, 2013, an alleged stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class-action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of
Hancock County, Ohio relating to the proposed acquisition of the
Company (the "Apollo transaction") by wholly owned subsidiaries
of Apollo Tyres Ltd. ("Apollo"). That lawsuit, captioned Auld v.
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 2013-CV-293, generally
alleges that the directors of the Company breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by agreeing to
enter into the transaction for an allegedly unfair price and as
the result of an allegedly unfair process.

Between June 18 and June 27, 2013, alleged stockholders of the
Company filed four other putative class-action lawsuits in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware relating to the
proposed Apollo transaction. Those lawsuits, which were
consolidated under the caption In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.
Stockholders Litigation, No. 8658-VCL, generally allege that the
directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by agreeing to enter into the then-pending
transaction for an allegedly unfair price and as the result of an
allegedly unfair process and by failing to disclose material
information to stockholders regarding the proposed transaction.

The Company, Apollo and certain affiliates of Apollo are also
defendants in the Ohio and Delaware lawsuits, and are alleged to
have aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary
duties. All of these Ohio and Delaware lawsuits seek, among other
things, declaratory and injunctive relief. The Company and its
directors believe that the allegations against them lack merit
and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

On October 4, 2013, the Company filed a complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Cooper Tire & Rubber
Co. v. Apollo (Mauritius) Holdings Pvt. Ltd. et al., No. 8980-
VCG, asking that certain affiliates of Apollo be required to use
their reasonable best efforts to close the then-pending merger
transaction as expeditiously as possible and also seeking, among
other things, declaratory relief and damages. On October 14,
2013, the Apollo entities filed counterclaims against the
Company, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

On November 8, 2013, after expedited proceedings, the court found
that the Apollo entities had not materially breached the merger
agreement. On December 19, 2013, the Apollo entities moved for an
entry of declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that the
conditions to closing the then-pending transaction were not
satisfied before the November 2013 trial. On December 30, 2013,
the Company terminated the merger agreement with the Apollo
entities, and requested payment of the reverse termination fee,
which the Apollo entities have refused to do. On January 27,
2014, the court determined that it would proceed with a decision
on the Apollo entities' motion for declaratory judgment, once
briefing on that motion is complete.


CR BARD: "Gutelius" Suit Transferred From N.D. Texas to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Gutelius v. C R Bard Inc., et al., Case No.
3:13-cv-01440, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio (Akron).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00362-SL to the proceeding.

The case alleges personal injury and product liability claims.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jennifer J. Hageman, Esq.
          ULMER & BERNE-CINCINNATI
          600 Vine Street, Suite 2800
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 698-5022
          Facsimile: (513) 698-5023
          E-mail: jhageman@ulmer.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Lerner, Esq.
          Richard B. North, Jr., Esq.
          Taylor T. Daly, Esq.
          NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH-ATLANTA
          201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 322-6000
          Facsimile: (404) 322-6050
          E-mail: matthew.lerner@nelsonmullins.com
                  richard.north@nelsonmullins.com
                  taylor.daly@nelsonmullins.com


ECOLAB INC: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. is a defendant in five wage hour lawsuits claiming
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") or a similar
state law, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

While the company settled two other wage hour cases during the
past year, including Doug Ladore v. Ecolab Inc., et al., United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
case no. CV 11-9386 GAF (FMOx), which was a putative wage hour
class action brought on behalf of California Pest Elimination
employees, there can be no assurance that other pending or future
wage hour lawsuits can be successfully defended or settled.


ECOLAB INC: One Suit Over COREXIT Remains in Miss. Circuit Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Franks v. Sea Tow of South Miss, Inc., et al, Cause No.
A2402-10-228, resulting from the use of the company's COREXIT
dispersant in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,
remains pending in the Circuit Court of Harrison County
Mississippi, according to Ecolab Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

The company's subsidiaries were named as defendants in pending
lawsuits alleging negligence and injury resulting from the use of
the company's COREXIT dispersant in response to the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill, which could expose the company to monetary
damages or settlement costs.  On April 22, 2010, the deepwater
drilling platform, the Deepwater Horizon, operated by a
subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the Gulf of Mexico after a
catastrophic explosion and fire that began on April 20, 2010. A
massive oil spill resulted.

Approximately one week following the incident, subsidiaries of BP
plc, under the authorization of the responding federal agencies,
formally requested the company's indirect subsidiary, Nalco
Company, to supply large quantities of COREXIT 9500, a Nalco oil
dispersant product listed on the U.S. EPA National Contingency
Plan Product Schedule. Nalco Company responded immediately by
providing available COREXIT and increasing production to supply
the product to BP's subsidiaries for use, as authorized and
directed by agencies of the federal government.

Nalco Company and certain affiliates (collectively "Nalco") was
named as a defendant in a series of class action and individual
plaintiff lawsuits arising from this event.  The plaintiffs in
these matters claimed damages under products liability, tort and
other theories. Nalco was also named as a third party defendant
in certain matters.  Nalco was indemnified in these matters by
another of the defendants.

All but one of these cases have been administratively transferred
to a judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana with other related cases under In Re: Oil
Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico,
on April 20, 2010, Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) (the "MDL").
The remaining case is Franks v. Sea Tow of South Miss, Inc., et
al, Cause No. A2402-10-228 (Circuit Court of Harrison County
Mississippi).


EQUIFAX INC: Court Appoints Interim Lead Counsel in FCRA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied the objecting plaintiffs' motion to disqualify counsel for
the settling plaintiff in a suit alleging violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act against Equifax Information Services LLC and
granted the motion of counsel for the settling plaintiffs to be
appointed as interim lead class counsel, according to Equifax
Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al.
v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC,
et al. , plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and
state law (the FCRA, the California Credit Reporting Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to follow
reasonable procedures to determine whether credit accounts are
discharged in bankruptcy, including the method for updating the
status of an account following a bankruptcy discharge.

On August 20, 2008, the District Court approved a Settlement
Agreement and Release providing for certain changes in the
procedures used by defendants to record discharges in bankruptcy
on consumer credit files. That settlement resolved claims for
injunctive relief, but not plaintiffs' claims for damages. On May
7, 2009, the District Court issued an order preliminarily
approving an agreement to settle remaining class claims. The
District Court subsequently deferred final approval of the
settlement and required the settling parties to send a
supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and
objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the
re-notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs' counsel fee award.
Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February 15,
2011.  The deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to
provide additional documentation to support their damage claims
or to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011.

On July 15, 2011, following another approval hearing, the
District Court approved the settlement. Several objecting
plaintiffs subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which, on April 22, 2013,
issued an order remanding the case to the District Court for
further proceedings. On January 21, 2014, the District Court
denied the objecting plaintiffs' motion to disqualify counsel for
the settling plaintiff and granted the motion of counsel for the
settling plaintiffs to be appointed as interim lead class
counsel.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces "Henson" Suit Alleging RESPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissia Henson and Keith Turner on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01240-ODW-RZ (C.D. Cal., February 19, 2014) is
brought under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

In connection with, and incident to, transactions involving real
estate settlement for federally related mortgage loans, FNF has
had a practice of (1) accepting, other than for services actually
performed by FNF, a portion, split, or percentage of the charge
to escrow participants by overnight delivery companies UPS,
Federal Express, and OnTrac, and (2) accepting fees, kickbacks,
or other things of value pursuant to agreements and
understandings that the delivery business will be referred to
UPS, Federal Express and OnTrac, according to the complaint.

FNF is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida.  FNF is the parent corporation of a group of title and
escrow companies, including Fidelity National Title Company,
Chicago Title Company, Ticor Title Company, Security Union Title
Company, Alamo Title Company, Lawyers Title Company, and
Commonwealth Land Title Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Michael Hennigan, Esq.
          Bruce R. MacLeod, Esq.
          Elizabeth Susan Lachman, Esq.
          Mieke K. Malmberg, Esq.
          MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C.
          865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 900 1 7
          Telephone (213) 694-1200
          Facsimile (213) 694-1234
          E-mail: hennigan@mckoolsmithhennigan.com
                  bmacleod@mckoolsmithhennigan.com
                  elachman@mckoolsmithhennigan.com
                  mmalmberg@glaserweil.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Gleason, Esq.
          HAHN LOESER AND PARKS LLP
          One America Plaza
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101-3384
          Telephone: (619) 810-4300
          Facsimile: (619) 810-4301
          E-mail: mgleason@hahnlaw.com


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Expects to Shell Out $32MM for Ceridian Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. estimated its portion of the
settlement entered into by Ceridian HCM, Inc., and Comdata Inc.
(collectively Ceridian) to resolve claims brought by a putative
class of U.S. Fueling Merchants to be approximately $32 million,
according to Fidelity's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2013.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, Ceridian entered into a
memorandum of understanding to resolve claims brought by a
putative class of U.S. Fueling Merchants. Under the terms of the
memorandum of understanding, which will need to be finalized in a
definitive settlement agreement and approved by the Court,
Ceridian has agreed to make a one-time cash payment of $100
million as part of a $130 million global settlement with other
defendants in the lawsuit, and to provide certain prospective
relief with respect to specific provisions in its merchant
agreements. This settlement will provide Ceridian and affiliated
companies with a broad release of claims and will limit their
exposure to legal claims by merchants. The company estimates its
portion of the settlement to be approximately $32 million, which
will be recorded by the company in the first quarter of 2014 as a
result of the company's three-month lag in accounting for the
results of operations of Ceridian.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Court Finds No RESPA Violations in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. won a favorable ruling that
recognizes the U.S. Supreme Court case Freeman v. Quicken Loans,
which eliminated against it alleged violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, according to the company's Feb. 28,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Two class action complaints titled Chultem v. Ticor Title
Insurance Co., Chicago Title and Trust, Co., and Fidelity
National Financial, Inc. and Colella v. Chicago Title Insurance
Co. and Chicago Title and Trust Co. are pending in the Illinois
state court against Chicago Title Insurance Company ("Chicago"),
Ticor Title Insurance Company ("Ticor"), Chicago Title and Trust
Company, and Fidelity National Financial, Inc., their parent,
(collectively "the Companies"). The Plaintiffs represent
certified classes of all borrowers and sellers of residential
real estate in Illinois who paid a premium for title insurance to
Chicago and Ticor which was split with attorney agents for
services which were performed in issuing the policies. The
complaint alleges the Companies violated the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and by doing so violated the
Illinois Title Insurance Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
The suit seeks compensatory damages in the amount of the premium
split paid to the attorney agents, interest, punitive damages, a
permanent injunction, attorney's fees and costs. Class
certification was denied on May 26, 2009, but the plaintiffs
appealed.  The Court of Appeal reversed and the case was remanded
to the trial court for certification and subsequent proceedings.
During 2013 and continuing through February 2014, the case
progressed. On February 7, 2014, the court entered an order in
favor of the company recognizing the U.S. Supreme Courts case
Freeman v. Quicken Loans, which determined that if a person with
whom fees were split performed any service then there was no
RESPA violation. The Plaintiff will have an opportunity to appeal
the Court's decision.


FIRST CASH: "Concepcion" Order May Affect Arbitration Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------------
In its Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, First
Cash Financial Services, Inc., said it is analyzing the effect to
its arbitration agreements of an April 2011 ruling of the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

In the past, a number of courts, including the California and
Nevada Supreme Courts, concluded that arbitration agreements with
class action waivers are "unconscionable" and hence
unenforceable, particularly where a small dollar amount is in
controversy on an individual basis. However, in April 2011, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion that the FAA preempts state laws that would otherwise
invalidate consumer arbitration agreements with class action
waivers.

The Company's arbitration agreements differ in some respects from
the agreement at issue in Concepcion, and some courts have
continued in the aftermath of Concepcion to find reasons to find
arbitration agreements unenforceable. Thus, it is possible that
one or more courts hostile to the Company's kind of lending
and/or to pre-dispute mandatory consumer arbitration agreements
could use the differences between the Company's arbitration
agreements and the agreement at issue in Concepcion, or some
other reason, as a basis for a refusal to enforce the Company's
arbitration agreements. Additionally, Congress has considered
legislation that would generally limit or prohibit mandatory
dispute arbitration in consumer contracts, and it has adopted
such prohibitions with respect to certain mortgage loans and
certain consumer loans to active-duty members of the military on
active duty and their dependents. Also, Dodd-Frank directs the
CFPB to study consumer arbitration and report to Congress, and it
authorizes the CFPB to adopt rules limiting or prohibiting
consumer arbitration, consistent with the results of its study.
The CFPB recently announced its proposal to conduct a nationwide
telephone survey of credit card holders. Under Dodd-Frank, any
CFPB rule prohibiting or limiting arbitration of disputes would
apply to arbitration agreements entered into more than six months
after the final rule becomes effective (and not to prior
arbitration agreements).

Any judicial decisions, federal legislation or CFPB rule that
would impair the Company's ability to enter into and enforce
dispute consumer arbitration agreements with class action waivers
could significantly increase the Company's exposure to class
action litigation as well as litigation in plaintiff-friendly
jurisdictions. Such litigation could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations and
financial condition.


FIRST FINANCIAL: Settlement in Lawsuit Over Merger Now Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas for the Thirteenth Judicial District,
State of South Carolina, County of Pickens issued an Order and
Final Judgment approving a settlement in the suit F. Davis
Arnette and Mary F. Arnette v. Peoples Bancorporation, Inc., Case
No. 2012-CP-39-0064, according to First Financial Holdings,
Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 18, 2012, two purported shareholders of Peoples filed
a class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas for the
Thirteenth Judicial District, State of South Carolina, County of
Pickens, captioned F. Davis Arnette and Mary F. Arnette v.
Peoples Bancorporation, Inc., Case No. 2012-CP-39-0064 (the
"Arnette Lawsuit"). The Complaint names as defendants Peoples,
the members of Peoples' board of directors immediately prior to
the completion of the merger between the Company and Peoples (the
"Director Defendants") and the Company. The Complaint is brought
on behalf of a putative class of shareholders of Peoples common
stock and seeks a declaration that it is properly maintainable as
a class action. The Complaint alleges that Peoples' directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
shareholder value in connection with the merger between the
Company and Peoples, and also alleges that the Company aided and
abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Complaint seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the completion of
the merger, an accounting to determine damages sustained by the
putative class, and costs including plaintiffs' attorneys' and
experts' fees. The Company believes that the claims asserted in
the Complaint are without merit and that the proceeding will not
have any material adverse effect on the financial condition or
operations of the Company.

On April 17, 2012, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Peoples MOU") with plaintiffs and other named
defendants regarding the settlement of the Complaint. Under the
terms of the Peoples MOU, the Company, Peoples, the Director
Defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the Arnette
Lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims relating to
the Peoples merger, subject to approval by the Court. If the
Court approves the settlement contemplated by the Peoples MOU,
the Arnette Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to
the terms of the Peoples MOU, the Company and Peoples have made
available additional information to Peoples shareholders in the
Current Report on Form 8-K filed April 18, 2012. In return, the
plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the Arnette Lawsuit
with prejudice and to withdraw all motions filed in connection
with the Arnette Lawsuit. On June 14, 2013, the parties entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and
Release. On September 17, 2013, the court issued an Order and
Final Judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the action
with prejudice.


FIRST FINANCIAL: Settles Litigation by Savannah Bank Shareholders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First Financial Holdings, Inc. entered into a settlement of the
suit Rational Strategies Fund v. Robert H. Demere, Jr. et al.,
No. 653566/2012, according to First Financial's Feb. 28, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On October 11, 2012, a purported shareholder of The Savannah
Bank's filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York captioned Rational Strategies Fund v. Robert H. Demere, Jr.
et al., No. 653566/2012 (the "Rational Lawsuit"), naming
Savannah, members of Savannah's board of directors and the
Company as defendants. This lawsuit is purportedly brought on
behalf of a putative class of Savannah's common shareholders and
seeks a declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class
action with the Plaintiff as the proper class representative. The
Rational Lawsuit alleges that Savannah, Savannah's directors and
the Company breached duties and/or aided and abetted such
breaches by failing to disclose certain material information
about the proposed merger between Savannah and the Company. Among
other relief, the Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger. The
Company believes that the claims asserted in the Complaint are
without merit and that the proceeding will not have any material
adverse effect on the financial condition or operations of the
Company.

On November 23, 2012, the Company, Savannah and the other named
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the
"Rational MOU") with the Plaintiff regarding a settlement of the
Rational Lawsuit. Pursuant to the Rational MOU, Savannah made
available additional information concerning the Savannah merger
to Savannah shareholders in a Current Report on Form 8-K. The
Rational MOU provides that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to
Savannah's shareholders.


FIRST FINANCIAL: Del. Court Approves Settlement in Investor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware issued an Order
and Final Judgment approving the settlement reached in In re
First Financial Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 8386-
VCN, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On March 5, 2013, a purported shareholder of FFCH filed a lawsuit
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned
Arthur Walter v. R. Wayne Hall et al., No. 8386-VCN. On March 25,
2013, another purported shareholder of FFCH filed a lawsuit in
the same court captioned Emmy Moore v. R. Wayne Hall et al., No.
8434-VCN. Each complaint named FFCH, members of FFCH's board of
directors and the Company as defendants. The complaints were
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of FFCH's
common shareholders and sought a declaration that the lawsuits
are properly maintainable as a class action with the named
plaintiffs as the proper class representatives. Each complaint
alleged that FFCH's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to FFCH shareholders by attempting to sell FFCH to the
Company by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price and
that the Company aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. Among other relief, each complaint sought
declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the proposed merger
between FFCH and the Company.

On April 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued an order
consolidating the two lawsuits into one action captioned In re
First Financial Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 8386-
VCN, and requiring the plaintiffs to file a single consolidated
amended complaint as soon as practicable. On May 7, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which
generally alleges that FFCH's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to FFCH shareholders by attempting to sell FFCH
to the Company by means of an unfair process and for an unfair
price and by failing to disclose certain material information
about the proposed merger.

On July 16, 2013, the Company, FFCH and the director defendants
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "FFCH MOU") with
plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the action, subject to the
approval of the court. Pursuant to the terms of the FFCH MOU, the
Company and FFCH agreed to make available additional information
to FFCH shareholders regarding the FFCH merger. In return, the
plaintiffs agreed to the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice
and not to seek any interim relief in favor of the alleged class
of FFCH stockholders. On October 30, 2013, the parties entered
into and filed with the Delaware court a stipulation of
settlement. On January 24, 2014, the court issued an Order and
Final Judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the action
with prejudice.


FIRST FINANCIAL: Inks MoU to Settle Suit by Rational Strategies
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Financial Holdings, Inc. entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle the suit Rational Strategies Fund v.
Robert R. Hill Jr. et al., No. 651625/2013, according to First
Financial's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On May 3, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the
County of New York captioned Rational Strategies Fund v. Robert
R. Hill Jr. et al., No. 651625/2013, naming the Company and
members of its board of directors as defendants. This lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of the
Company's common shareholders and seeks a declaration that it is
properly maintainable as a class action with the Plaintiff as the
proper class representative. The lawsuit alleges that the Company
and members of its board of directors breached duties by failing
to disclose certain material information about the proposed
merger between FFCH and the Company. Among other relief, the
Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger.

On July 18, 2013, the court granted a temporary injunction
enjoining the Company from certifying the vote of its
shareholders at its special meeting on July 24, 2013 to consider
and vote upon the FFCH merger, pending a hearing scheduled for
the same date on the defendants' motion to vacate that temporary
injunction. On July 19, 2013, the Company entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "Rational/FFCH MOU") with
plaintiff regarding the settlement of the action. Pursuant to the
Rational/FFCH MOU, the Company agreed to make available
additional information to the Company shareholders regarding the
FFCH merger, and the plaintiff agreed to jointly request with the
Company that the temporary injunction be lifted so that the
results of the special meeting could be certified without any
delay or impediment. Under the terms of the Rational/FFCH MOU,
the Company, the Company director defendants and the plaintiff
have agreed to settle the lawsuit and release the defendants from
all claims made by the plaintiff relating to the FFCH merger,
subject to approval by the Court. If the court approves the
settlement contemplated by the Rational/FFCH MOU, the lawsuit
will be dismissed with prejudice. On February 20, 2014, the
parties entered into a stipulation of settlement that is subject
to court approval.


FNB CORP: "Darr" Plaintiff Withdraws Suit Over BCSB Purchase
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in Darr v. BCSB Bancorp, Inc., et al., at Case No.
03-C-13-014034 voluntarily dismissed its complaint over F.N.B.
Corporation's proposed acquisition of BCSB Bancorp, according to
F.N.B.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On December 9, 2013, a purported stockholder of BCSB filed a
putative class action and derivative complaint in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Darr v. BCSB
Bancorp, Inc., et al., at Case No. 03-C-13-014034, and naming as
defendants BCSB, its board of directors and the Corporation. The
lawsuit makes various allegations against the defendants relating
to the Corporation's proposed acquisition of BCSB, including that
the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 19, 2013
in connection with the proposed acquisition omits certain
information allegedly necessary for BCSB's stockholders to make
an informed vote on the proposed transaction, that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to BCSB in approving
the proposed transaction and that the Corporation aided and
abetted those alleged breaches. The lawsuit generally sought an
injunction barring the defendants from consummating the merger
transaction. Alternatively, if the companies were to complete the
transaction before the court entered judgment, the lawsuit sought
rescission of the merger or, in the alternative, rescissory
damages, an accounting for all resulting damages and for all
profits and any special benefits defendants obtained as a result
of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and an award for the
costs and expenses incurred in the lawsuit, including attorneys'
fees and costs. On January 30, 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed its complaint.


FOOD SAFETY: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Class Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Almuiz Altiep and Tafsir Shawkat, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Food Safety Net Services, LTD,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00642-K (N.D. Tex., February 19, 2014) alleges
that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the Class
Members in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs and the Class Members were non-
exempt employees, yet the Defendant failed to pay them at time
and one half their regular rate of pay for hours worked in a
workweek in excess of 40 hours, the Plaintiffs contend.

Food Safety Net Services, LTD, is a Texas domestic limited
partnership headquartered in San Antonio, Texasx.  The Company
has operations throughout the United States in which it performs
laboratory analysis to verify food quality and safety.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
          Southlake, TX 76092
          Telephone: (817) 416-5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donna K. McElroy, Esq.
          COX SMITH MATTHEWS INCORPORATED
          112 E Pecan, Suite 1800
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 554-5500
          Facsimile: (210) 226-8395
          E-mail: dkm@coxsmith.com


GALA APPLE: Suits Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jerardo Vera, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Gala Apple International, Inc., dba Gala Apple Supermarket and
David Agaronov, Case No. 1:14-cv-01098-ENV-JMA (E.D.N.Y.,
February 19, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Gala Apple International, Inc., doing business as Gala Apple
Supermarket, is a New York domestic corporation headquartered in
Bronx, New York.  David Agaronov is an owner, officer, director
or managing agent of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


GE SECURITY: Invaded Privacy of Class Members, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Edward Makaron, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GE Security Manufacturing, Inc.; General
Electric International, Inc.; Security One Alarm, Inc. and Does
1-10 Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-01274-GW-AGR (C.D. Cal.,
February 19, 2014) is brought for damages resulting from the
Defendants' alleged illegal actions in negligently and willfully
contact the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his
privacy.

GE Security Manufacturing Inc. and General Electric
International, Inc. are Delaware corporations.  Security One
Alarm, Inc., is a California corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.c.
          369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Banks Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
securities lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to Goldman Sachs Group's Feb. 28,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group
Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's
activities in the CDO market, the firm's conflict of interest
management, and the SEC investigation that led to GS&Co. entering
into a consent agreement with the SEC, settling all claims made
against GS&Co. by the SEC in connection with the ABACUS 2007-AC1
CDO offering (ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction), pursuant to which
GS&Co. paid $550 million of disgorgement and civil penalties. The
consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which
names as defendants Group Inc. and certain officers and employees
of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks
unspecified damages. On June 21, 2012, the district court
dismissed the claims based on Group Inc.'s not disclosing that it
had received a "Wells" notice from the staff of the SEC related
to the ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction, but permitted the plaintiffs'
other claims to proceed.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Units Still Face Suits Over GS&Co.-Related Deals
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. companies continues to face
litigations brought on behalf of purchasers of various mortgage
pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates
underwritten by GS&Co. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to Goldman Sachs' Feb.
28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

GS&Co., Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (GSMC) and GS Mortgage
Securities Corp. (GSMSC) and three current or former Goldman
Sachs employees are defendants in a putative class action
commenced on December 11, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of
various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed
certificates issued by various securitization trusts established
by the firm and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007. The complaint
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
supplements for the certificates violated the federal securities
laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission
or rescissionary damages. By a decision dated September 6, 2012,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims with respect to
10 of the 17 offerings included in plaintiff's original complaint
but vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the district
court with instructions to reinstate the plaintiff's claims with
respect to the other seven offerings. On October 31, 2012, the
plaintiff served a fourth amended complaint relating to those
seven offerings, plus seven additional offerings (additional
offerings). On June 3, 2010, another investor (who had
unsuccessfully sought to intervene in the action) filed a
separate putative class action asserting substantively similar
allegations relating to one of the additional offerings. The
district court twice granted defendants' motions to dismiss this
separate action, both times with leave to replead. That separate
plaintiff has filed an amended complaint and has moved to further
amend this complaint to add claims with respect to two more of
the additional offerings; defendants have moved to dismiss and
opposed the amendment. The securitization trusts issued, and
GS&Co. underwrote, approximately $11 billion principal amount of
certificates to all purchasers in the fourteen offerings at issue
in the complaints.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Wants to Appeal Certification of Suit v. GS&Co
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, the defendants in a suit filed
against GS&Co., Group Inc. and two former GS&Co. employees on
behalf of investors petitioned for leave to appeal a class
certification order.

On September 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
GS&Co., Group Inc. and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of
investors in $823 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two
synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2). The amended
complaint asserts federal securities law and common law claims,
and seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages.
The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted as to plaintiff's
claim of market manipulation and denied as to the remainder of
plaintiff's claims by a decision dated March 21, 2012. On May 21,
2012, the defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract and
fraud. By a decision dated January 22, 2014, the court granted
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On February 6,
2014, defendants petitioned for leave to appeal the class
certification order.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bank Wants to Junk Claims Over Litton Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, Group moved to sever the claims
against it and certain other defendants in a suit challenging the
procurement manner and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurance
arranged by Litton.

Group Inc., Litton, Ocwen and Arrow Corporate Member Holdings
LLC, a former subsidiary of Group Inc., are defendants in a
putative class action pending since January 23, 2013 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York generally
challenging the procurement manner and scope of "force-placed"
hazard insurance arranged by Litton when homeowners failed to
arrange for insurance as required by their mortgages. The
complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment
and violation of Florida unfair practices law, and seeks
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief. The second amended complaint,
filed on November 19, 2013, added an additional plaintiff and
RICO claims. On January 21, 2014, Group Inc. moved to sever the
claims against it and certain other defendants.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bank Wants to Dismiss Claims in Home Program Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, Group Inc. moved to dismiss claims
against it in a suit alleging Litton and Ocwen Servicing, LLC
erred in failing to modify the mortgage loans of homeowners
participating in the federal Home Affordable Modification
Program.

On February 25, 2013, Group Inc. was added as a defendant through
an amended complaint in a putative class action, originally filed
on April 6, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against Litton, Ocwen and Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC (Ocwen Servicing). The amended complaint generally
alleges that Litton and Ocwen Servicing systematically breached
agreements and violated various federal and state consumer
protection laws by failing to modify the mortgage loans of
homeowners participating in the federal Home Affordable
Modification Program, and names Group Inc. based on its prior
ownership of Litton. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief. On April 29, 2013, Group Inc.
moved to dismiss.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Certification Sought in Mass. Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, Plaintiffs in a suit alleging
antitrust law violations against Group Inc. and other companies
in the bidding for private equity-sponsored acquisitions of
public companies moved for class certification.

Group Inc. is among numerous private equity firms named as
defendants in a federal antitrust action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts in December
2007. As amended, the complaint generally alleges that the
defendants have colluded to limit competition in bidding for
private equity-sponsored acquisitions of public companies,
thereby resulting in lower prevailing bids and, by extension,
less consideration for shareholders of those companies in
violation of Section 1 of the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act and
common law. The complaint seeks, among other things, treble
damages in an unspecified amount. On March 13, 2013, the court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions for
summary judgment, rejecting plaintiffs' theory of overarching
collusion, but permitting plaintiffs' claims to proceed based on
narrower theories. On October 21, 2013, plaintiffs moved for
class certification.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Appeal v. Certification of N.Y. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, GS&Co. and other underwriter
defendants in a securities suit pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, petitioned for leave
to appeal a class certification order in the suit.

GS&Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in a
putative securities class action initially filed in September
2008 in New York Supreme Court, and subsequently removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As to
the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering documents
in connection with various offerings of mortgage-backed pass-
through certificates violated the disclosure requirements of the
federal securities laws. In addition to the underwriters, the
defendants include Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap), Residential
Accredit Loans, Inc. (RALI), Residential Funding Corporation
(RFC), Residential Funding Securities Corporation (RFSC), and
certain of their officers and directors. On January 3, 2013, the
district court certified a class in connection with one offering
underwritten by GS&Co. which includes only initial purchasers who
bought the securities directly from the underwriters or their
agents no later than ten trading days after the offering date. On
April 30, 2013, the district court granted in part plaintiffs'
request to reinstate a number of the previously dismissed claims
relating to an additional nine offerings underwritten by GS&Co.
On May 10, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
incorporating those nine additional offerings. On December 27,
2013, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as to the nine additional offerings but denied the
plaintiffs' motion to expand the time period and scope covered by
the previous class definition. On January 10, 2014, defendants
petitioned for leave to appeal the December 27, 2013 class
certification order.

GS&Co. underwrote approximately $5.57 billion principal amount of
securities to all purchasers in the offerings included in the
amended complaint. On May 14, 2012, ResCap, RALI and RFC filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York. On June 28, 2013, the district
court entered a final order and judgment approving a settlement
between plaintiffs and ResCap, RALI, RFC, RFSC and their officers
and directors named as defendants in the action.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Junk Suit Over MF Global Offerings Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied defendants' motions to
dismiss an amended complaint filed against GS&Co. and other
underwriters in the offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd.
convertible notes.

GS&Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in
class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York commencing November 18, 2011. These
complaints generally allege that the offering materials for two
offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd. convertible notes
(aggregating approximately $575 million in principal amount) in
February 2011 and July 2011, among other things, failed to
describe adequately the nature, scope and risks of MF Global's
exposure to European sovereign debt, in violation of the
disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. On
November 12, 2013, the court denied the defendants' motions to
dismiss the amended complaint. GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate
principal amount of approximately $214 million of the notes. On
October 31, 2011, MF Global Holdings Ltd. filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, New York.

GS&Co. has also received inquiries from various governmental and
regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations concerning
certain transactions with MF Global prior to its bankruptcy
filing. Goldman Sachs is cooperating with all such inquiries.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeals Court Puts Gender Bias Suit in Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one
of the named plaintiffs in a suit filed by three female former
employees against Group Inc. and GS&Co. in the U.S. District for
the Southern District of New York.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and GS&Co. have
systematically discriminated against female employees in respect
of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and
performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting
of all female employees employed at specified levels by Group
Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal
and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class
action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of
compensatory, punitive and other damages. On July 17, 2012, the
district court issued a decision granting in part Group Inc.'s
and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of plaintiffs' class
allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to
pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group Inc.'s and
GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations in their
entirety as premature. On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit held that arbitration should be
compelled with one of the named plaintiffs, who as a managing
director was a party to an arbitration agreement with the firm.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in Credit Derivatives Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, plaintiffs in an antitrust suit
against GS&Co. and Group Inc. over credit derivatives filed a
consolidated amended complaint with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the numerous defendants in
putative antitrust class actions relating to credit derivatives,
filed beginning in May 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints
generally allege that defendants violated federal antitrust laws
by conspiring to forestall the development of alternatives to
over-the-counter trading of credit derivatives and maintain
inflated bid-ask spreads for credit derivatives trading. The
complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
treble damages in an unspecified amount. On January 31, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bank Faces Lawsuit Over Aluminum Storage Business
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, Group Inc. and its subsidiaries are
facing lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging violations of federal antitrust
laws and other federal and state laws in connection with the
management of aluminum storage facilities.

Group Inc. and its subsidiaries, GS Power Holdings LLC and Metro
International Trade Services LLC, are among the defendants in a
number of putative class actions filed beginning on August 1,
2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaints generally allege violation
of federal antitrust laws and other federal and state laws in
connection with the management of aluminum storage facilities.
The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable
relief as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble
damages.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Units Still Face Lawsuits Over Foreign Exchange
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013, GS&Co. and Group Inc. continues to
be among the defendants named in several putative antitrust class
actions relating to trading in the foreign exchange markets,
filed since December 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal
antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seek
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount.


HARMAN INT'L: Ark. Retirees Appealed Dismissal of Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit from an order entered by the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia dismissing the consolidated class
action complaint in the lawsuit captioned In re: Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Appellant wants the Appeals Court to determine whether the
District Court erred by dismissing the Lead Plaintiff's
Consolidated Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on
the basis that certain of Defendants' false and misleading
statements (i) are protected by the safe harbor of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act and are, thus, inactionable, and
(ii) constituted puffery and are, thus, inactionable.

The Plaintiff-Appellant Arkansas Public Employees Retirement
System is represented by:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstien.com
                  dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
                  dbunch@cohenmilstein.com

The Plaintiff-Appellee City Of Boca Raton General Employees
Pension Plan is represented by:

          Tim Battin, Esq.
          STRAUS & BOIES, LLP
          4041 University Drive, Fifth Floor
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 764-8700
          E-mail: tbattin@straus-boies.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Thomas Francis Cullen, Jr., Esq.
          JONES DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2113
          Telephone: (202) 879-3939
          E-mail: tfcullen@jonesday.com

The appellate case is In re: Harman International Industries,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 14-07017, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The original case is In re: Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-01757-RC, in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia.


H20 LANDSCAPE: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Premium Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerson Cameros, Pedro Agualoma, Jose Montalban, Neftali Oliveros,
Luis Chicayza, Segundo Lugo, Hector Cortes, Jorge Gualpa, Fidelio
Mejia, Jose Manuel, Rene Arturo Zepeda, Hipolito Myancela, and
all others similarly situated v. H20 Landscape Design Inc.,
Jeffrey Lipstein, and Desmond Sheppard, Case No. 1:14-cv-01018-
GBD (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2014) accuses the Defendants of
failing to pay the Plaintiffs' overtime premium pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per week.

H20 Landscape Design Inc. is a New York corporation headquartered
in Bronx, New York.  The Individual Defendants are officers of
the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan Alexander El-Hag, Esq.
          EL-HAG AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          91 New Street
          Ridgefield, CT 06877
          Telephone: (914) 755-1579
          Facsimile: (914) 206-4176
          E-mail: jaelhag@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Raymond Nardo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RAYMOND NARDO
          129 Third Street
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 248-2121
          E-mail: raymondnardo@gmail.com


HANGTIME INC: Sent Unsolicited and Text Messages, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Salam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hangtime, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-01252 (N.D. Ill., February 19, 2014) alleges that in an
effort to market its products and services, Hangtime sent (or
directed to be sent on its behalf) unsolicited text messages to
the wireless telephones of the Plaintiff and each of the members
of the Class without prior express written consent in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Hangtime is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located in San Francisco County, California.  Hangtime
is a corporation that develops social applications for portable
electronic devices, such as wireless phones.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          One South Dearborn, Suite 2100
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Telephone: (312) 212-4383
          Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Hong-an Vu, Esq.
          Patrick S. Thompson, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 733-6000
          E-mail: hvu@goodwinprocter.com
                  pthompson@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Louis David Bernstein, Esq.
          Michael Patrick McBride, Esq.
          THE BERNSTEIN LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 N. Clark Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 645-6091
          Facsimile: (866) 929-7392
          E-mail: lbernstein@law-ldb.com
                  mmcbride@law-ldb.com


HENRY RANCH: Sued by Texas Class to Vindicate Wrongful Discharge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd "Skip" Conway, and Deborah Sue Conway v. Henry Ranch LLC,
James C. Henry, James David Henry, Paula Henry, Beverly Henry
Curci, and Jamie Henry Mitros, Case No. 5:14-cv-00150-FB (W.D.
Tex., February 19, 2014) is brought by the Plaintiffs to
vindicate their alleged wrongful discharge and to recover wages
owed to them.

Henry Ranch LLC is a Domestic Limited Liability Company qualified
to do business in Texas.  Henry Ranch provides a wide range of
exotic livestock including, Axis Deer, Texas Dall Sheep, Barbado
Sheep, Black Hawaiian Sheep, Boer Goats, and Black Buck Antelope.
The Individual Defendants are co-owners of Henry Ranch.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
          906 West Basse Road, Suite 100
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Telephone: (210) 822-5666
          Facsimile: (210) 822-5650
          E-mail: glenn@glennlevylaw.com


LIVE NATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that Bruce Springsteen fans who claim they paid too much for
tickets to his 2012 "Wrecking Ball" tour are suing the concert
promoters for consumer fraud.

The suit, filed in federal court in Trenton, alleges the
promoters, Live Nation Entertainment and three subsidiaries, set
aside large blocks of tickets for brokers, forcing fans into the
much more expensive secondary market or pricing them out.

It is one of three putative class action suits alleging such
practices.  The others involve Jon Bon Jovi's 2010 "Circle Tour,"
Justin Bieber's 2013 "Believe Tour" and the 2014 Super Bowl.
All three suits allege violations of a N.J. Consumer Fraud Act
prohibition on anyone with access to tickets for an event prior
to their release for sale to the general public withholding more
than 5 percent from the open market.

In the Springsteen suit, Forst v. Live Nation Entertainment,
filed in federal court in Trenton on April 17, the putative class
includes the estimated thousands of fans who bought tickets at
higher than face value for Springsteen and E Street Band's five
New Jersey stops on the 2012 tour.  It also encompasses would-be
buyers who allegedly did not purchase tickets because they could
not afford to pay the marked-up prices.

Named plaintiff Marilyn Forst, of East Windsor, claims that on
Jan. 27, 2012, she paid $225 apiece plus almost $57 in additional
fees for two tickets to the April 3, 2012, show at the Izod
Center in the Meadowlands.  She alleges that Live Nation had
deals with ticket brokers or others allowing them to purchase
large blocks in advance, above the 5 percent ceiling set by
N.J.S.A. 56:8-35.1, and that it was a per se violation of the law
for which the defendants are strictly liable.

In addition, Ms. Forst claims unjust enrichment from the millions
of extra dollars in profits allegedly gained.  She is asking for
injunctive relief, compensatory damages and the treble damages
and legal fees available under the statute.  Her lawyer, Bruce
Nagel -- bnagel@nagelrice.com -- of Nagel Rice in Roseland, also
represents the plaintiffs in the other two suits, also in the
District of New Jersey.

In one, Jessica Pollard, of New York City, is suing AEG Live, AEG
Live New Jersey and Concerts West, the alleged promoters of four
Bon Jovi shows at MetLife Stadium in May and July 2009 and two
Justin Bieber dates at Newark's Prudential Center in July 2013.
The complaint in Pollard v. AEG, filed Feb. 21 and amended
April 11, alleges she paid $175 each for four Bon Jovi tickets
and $213 each for three Bieber tickets, amounts "far in excess of
the face value."

In the third suit, Josh Finkelman of New Brunswick alleges the
National Football League held back from public sale all but about
1 percent of the 2014 Super Bowl tickets, which were distributed
through a random drawing.

Of the rest, 75 percent went to the 32 teams in the league and 25
percent were distributed by the NFL and related entities to
companies, broadcast networks, media sponsors, the host committee
and "other league insiders," says the complaint in Finkelman v.
National Football League, which was filed on Jan. 6, in advance
of the game played Feb. 2 at MetLife Stadium.

Mr. Finkelman alleges the franchise teams did not make their
allotments available to the public but offered significant
numbers to resellers who charged grossly inflated prices for the
tickets alone or as part of even more costly packages that
included luxury hotels, restaurants, pregame parties and
limousines.  He claims he paid $4,000 for two tickets.

Ben Hoch-Parker of Eugene, Ore., who was added as a plaintiff on
Feb. 11, alleges he wanted to go to the game with his wife and
three children and was willing to spend as much as $1,000 per
ticket, but they all stayed home because the cheapest seats he
could find cost $4,200 each.

The NFL moved to dismiss on March 14, calling the suit a
"strained attempt to stretch [the Consumer Fraud Act] far beyond
its obvious scope" and contending that the high secondary market
prices are caused not by its distribution policies but by the
"overwhelming demand for tickets to one of the most popular
sporting events in the world."  It also argued Hoch-Parker lacks
standing.  The plaintiffs have filed opposing papers and cross-
moved for partial summary judgment.

Live Nation has not yet been served and AEG just got an extension
until May 9 because of the amended complaint against it.

The 5 percent maximum on withholding tickets was added to the
Consumer Fraud Act in 2002, in response to the findings of the
Ticket Brokering Study Commission created by Gov. Christie
Whitman in 1997 to review industry practices.

Legislation has been attempted at the federal level too.  In
2009, U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., introduced the BOSS ACT
(Better Oversight of Secondary Sales and Accountability in
Concert Ticketing Act) in response to problems experienced by
people trying to buy Springsteen tickets.  The act would have
required primary ticket sellers to disclose the total number of
tickets offered for sale to the public and the number withheld
and keep brokers from buying tickets for the first 48 hours.

Mr. Pascrell plans to reintroduce an updated version of the BOSS
ACT with added provisions to address paperless ticketing and the
use of computer software to circumvent security features on a
ticket-selling website or flood it with requests.

Mr. Nagel did not return a call, nor did AEG's lawyer,
James Richter of Winston & Strawn in Newark.

NFL attorneys, Karen Confoy -- kconfoy@foxrothschild.com -- of
Fox Rothschild in Lawrenceville and Jonathan Pressment --
jonathan.pressment@haynesboone.com -- of Haynes & Boone in New
York, decline comment.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In re Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. Securities Litigation continues
in the United States District Court for Northern California,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On February 7, February 14 and February 22, 2013, Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President and CEO, former CFO
and CFO were sued in three separate legal complaints filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York naming the Company and them each as defendants and
respectively entitled, Patrick Barnicle, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Eyal
Waldman, Michael Gray and Jacob Shulman, Case No. 13 CIV 925,
David R. Ryan, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Eyal Waldman, Michael
Gray and Jacob Shulman, Case No. 13 CV 1047 and Valentin Petrov,
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd., Eyal Waldman, Michael Gray and Jacob Shulman,
Case No. 13 CV 1225. The complaints were filed by Patrick
Barnacle, David R. Ryan and Valentin Petrov, respectively, each
for himself as a plaintiff and, purportedly, on behalf of persons
purchasing the Company's ordinary shares between April 19, 2012
and January 2, 2013 (the "Class Period").

On May 14, 2013, the Court consolidated the Barnicle, Ryan and
Petrov complaints and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
On July 12, 2013, an Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed
against the same defendants. The Amended Consolidated Complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, the defendants made false or misleading
statements (or failed to disclose certain facts) regarding the
Company's business and outlook.

In the amended complaint, plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable
attorney's fees, and any other relief deemed just and proper by
the court. On October 11, 2013, the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York transferred the
consolidated action to the United States District Court for
Northern California. The consolidated action is captioned, In re
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:13-
cv-04909-JST.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Israeli Shareholder Litigation Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Division of the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa
stayed a suit by purported shareholder Mr. Avigdor Weinberger
against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. pending the completion of a
consolidated securities suit in the United States District Court
for Northern California, according to the company's Feb. 28,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On February 20, 2013, a request for approval of a class action
was filed in the Economic Division of the District Court of Tel
Aviv-Jaffa against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's
President and CEO, former CFO, CFO and each of the members of the
Company's board of directors (the "Israeli Claim"). The Israeli
Claim was filed by Mr. Avigdor Weinberger (the "Claimant"). The
Israeli Claim alleges that the Company, the board members, the
Company's President and CEO, its former CFO and its current CFO
are responsible for making misleading statements (or failing to
disclose certain facts) and filings to the public, as a result of
which the shares of the Company were allegedly traded at a higher
price than their true value during a period commencing on April
19, 2012 and ending January 2, 2013 and, therefore, these parties
are responsible for damages caused to the purchasers of the
Company's shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange during this time.
The Claimant seeks an award of compensation to the relevant
shareholders for all damages caused to them, including attorney
fees and Claimant's fee and any other relief deemed just and
proper by the court. On April 24, 2013, the Claimant and the
Company filed a procedural agreement with the court to stay the
Israeli Claim pending the completion of the Barnicle, Ryan and
Petrov cases. On April 24, 2013, the Israeli court approved this
procedural agreement and stayed the Israeli proceedings.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Lawsuit Over Tel Aviv Delisting Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the suit Mordechay Turgeman v. Mellanox et. al.
(Case No.: 13189-06-13) filed in the Tel-Aviv District court
requested to withdraw claims against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd.,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On June 6, 2013, a complaint was filed in the Tel-Aviv District
court (the "Israeli Court") in Tel Aviv, Israel (Mordechay
Turgeman v. Mellanox et. al. (Case No.: 13189-06-13)), in which
the plaintiff alleged that the Company's decision to delist from
the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange ("TASE") was a breach of the duty of
loyalty of the Company's board of directors (the "Board"), as
well as a breach of fiduciary duty and duty of care by the
Company's president and chief executive officer (the "Claim"). In
addition, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the complaint
as a class action. The Company was served with the complaint on
June 16, 2013. On December 22, 2013, the Company and the Board
filed their Response to the motion to certify the complaint as a
class action (the "Response").

On January 7, 2014 the plaintiff, with the consent of the
Company, filed a request to withdraw the Claim (and related class
action claim) against the Company and the Board (the "Withdrawal
Petition") after the plaintiff, in view of the facts and
arguments presented in the Response, reached the conclusion that
it would be difficult for the plaintiff to prove the Claim and
have the complaint approved as a class action. Neither the
plaintiff nor its attorneys have received or will receive any
benefit in return for their withdrawal.

On January 8, 2014, the Israeli Court ordered that a notice
should be published in two newspapers in Israel in which
potential class members, the Israeli attorney general, the
director of Israeli courts and the Israeli Securities Authority
were notified that any such party has 45 days from the date of
the notice to present its position to the Israeli Court objecting
to or relating to the Withdrawal Petition. On January 9, 2014 the
Israeli court approved the form of the notice, and the notice was
published on Sunday, January 12, 2014. While any withdrawal of
the Claim (and related class action claim) is ultimately within
the discretion of the Israeli Court, the Company believes that
the Israeli Court will approve such withdrawal if none of such
parties make a filing objecting to such withdrawal. Based on
currently available information, no such objection has occurred
and the Company believes that the resolution of this claim is not
likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


MITSUBA CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit in Michigan Over Fan Motors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars Of Washington, Inc., et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated v. Mitsuba Corporation and
American Mitsuba Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-10773-MOB-MKM
(E.D. Mich., February 19, 2014) is brought against the Defendants
and unnamed co-conspirators, manufacturers and suppliers of Fan
Motors
for engaging in a long-running conspiracy to unlawfully fix,
artificially raise, maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for,
and allocate the market and customers in the United States for
Fan Motors.

Fan Motors are small electric motors used to turn radiator
cooling fans.

The Plaintiffs are Martens Cars Of Washington, Inc.; Landers Auto
Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota; Hammett Motor Company,
Inc.; Superstore Automotive, Inc.; Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC
Truck, Inc.; V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd.; Desert European Motorcars,
Ltd.; Dale Martens Nissan Subaru, Inc.; Green Team of Clay Center
Inc.; McGrath Automotive Group, Inc.; Table Rock Automotive,
Inc., d/b/a Todd Archer Hyundai; Archer-Perdue, Inc., d/b/a
Archer-Perdue Suzuki; Bonneville and Son, Inc.; Holzhauer Auto
and Truck Sales, Inc.; Pitre, Inc., d/b/a Pitre Buick GMC; Patsy
Lou Chevrolet, Inc.; John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC; SLT
Group II, Inc., d/b/a Planet Nissan Subaru Of Flagstaff; Herb
Hallman Chevrolet, Inc., d/b/a Champion Chevrolet; Charles
Daher's Commonwealth Motors, Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Chevrolet,
Commonwealth Kia, Commonwealth Honda; Commonwealth Volkswagen,
Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Volkswagen; Commonwealth Nissan, Inc.,
d/b/a Commonwealth Nissan; Ramey Motors, Inc.; Thornhill
Superstore, Inc., d/b/a Thornhill GM Superstore; Dave Heather
Corporation, d/b/a Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru; Central
Salt Lake Valley Gmc Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Salt Lake Valley
Buick GMC; Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc.; Capitol Dealerships,
Inc., d/b/a Capitol Toyota; Beck Motors, Inc.; Stranger
Investments d/b/a Stephen Wade Toyota John O'neil Johnson Toyota,
LLC; Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc.; Lee Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc.
d/b/a Lee Honda; Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. d/b/a Lee Toyota of
Topsham; Landers of Hazelwood, LLC d/b/a Landers Toyota of
Hazelwood; Little Rock CDJ, Inc. d/b/a Steve Landers Chrysler
Dodge Jeep Cannon Chevrolet - Oldsmobile - Cadillac - Nissan,
Inc.; Cannon Nissan Of Jackson, LLC; Hudson Charleston
Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Hudson Nissan; Shearer Automotive
Enterprises III, Inc.; Apex Motor Corporation; Hudson Gastonia
Acquisition, LLC and HC Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Toyota of Bristol;
Hodges Imported Cars, Inc. d/b/a Hodges Subaru, and Reno Dodge
Sales, Inc. d/b/a Don Weir's Reno Dodge.

The Mitsuba Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Fan Motors
throughout and into the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          David Hansma, Esq.
          Brendan Frey, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
                  dhansma@manteselaw.com
                  bfrey@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  joel@cuneolaw.com
                  danielc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          Paul A. Sand, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
                  psand@larsonking.com

               - and -

          Phillip Duncan, Esq.
          Richard Quintus, Esq.
          DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
          900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 228-7600
          E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com
                  richard@duncanfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
          Valerie Nettles, Esq.
          LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          12870 US Hwy. 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
                  alex@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, Tennessee 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory Johnson, Esq.
          G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
          6688 145th Street West,
          Apple Valley, MN 55124
          Telephone: (952) 930-2485
          E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


MIZU TEPPANYAKE: Faces Florida Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Haney, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Mizu Teppanyake and Sushi LLC, a Florida Corporation
and Shui Xing Dong, individually, Case No. 6:14-cv-00287-JA-KRS
(M.D. Fla., February 19, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William J. Terry, III, Esq.
          PO Box 141035
          Orlando, FL 32814
          Telephone: (407) 982-1789
          Facsimile: (407) 429-3845
          E-mail: wjterry@gmail.com


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. remains a defendant in the suit In re:
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were
initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of
the Company's carpet underlay division had engaged in price
fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company has been
named as a defendant in a number of the individual cases (the
first filed on August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated
amended class action complaints (the first filed on February 28,
2011) on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of
polyurethane foam products, and the second filed on March 21,
2011, on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers. All pending
cases in which the Company has been named as a defendant have
been filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio for consolidated pre-trial proceedings
under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or
a class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecified
damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in
the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the
present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief
against future violations.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Lawsuit Over "Price Fixing" in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. faces two lawsuits in Canada alleging
that certain manufacturers of polyurethane foam products engaged
in price fixing activities, according to the company's Feb. 28,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a
Canadian Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v.
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et.al., filed in the
Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options
Consommateures v. Vitafoam, Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior
Court of Justice of Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which
allege similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S.
actions and seek unspecified damages and punitive damages.

The U.S. federal court cases allege that certain manufacturers of
polyurethane foam products and competitors of the Company's
carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in violation
of U.S. antitrust laws.


MURPHY OIL: Dismissed From Hot Fuel Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil USA, Inc. was dismissed from all cases that allege
plaintiffs received less motor fuel than the defendants agreed to
deliver because the defendants measured the amount of motor fuel
it delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons, according to
Murphy USA Inc.'s Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, numerous class action
lawsuits have been filed in federal courts across the country
against petroleum companies and significant retailers in the
petroleum industry, in which the plaintiffs generally allege that
they received less motor fuel than the defendants agreed to
deliver because the defendants measured the amount of motor fuel
they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons which, at
higher temperatures, contain less energy.  Murphy USA's
subsidiary, Murphy Oil USA, Inc., was a defendant in eight of
these cases.  However, on February 10, 2014, Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
was dismissed from all cases with prejudice.


NEW JERSEY: U.S. Attorney Subpoenas Materials in Bridgegate Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
federal prosecutors investigating last fall's closure of local
access lanes to the George Washington Bridge have subpoenaed
materials from the New Jersey Legislature panel probing the same.

U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman is seeking all documents that the New
Jersey Select Committee on Investigation has obtained since it
began its investigation earlier this year.

The committee's co-chairs, Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-
Middlesex, and Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, said in a joint
statement that the committee would cooperate with the
government's investigation.

"We will comply fully with the request," the lawmakers said in
their statement.  "This reaffirms our progress in uncovering
important information about the apparent abuse of government
power and threat to public safety.  Our committee will continue
to cooperate with the federal authorities as we pursue the
investigation."

Both the legislative committee and the U.S. attorney are
investigating the circumstances that led to the Sept. 9-13 lane
closures and other possible misdeeds by Gov. Chris Christie's
administration.  A federal grand jury has been convened.

The closures were orchestrated by Gov. Christie's former deputy
chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, and David Wildstein, the former
director of interstate capital projects at the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey, which owns and operates the bridge.
They caused massive traffic delays in and around Fort Lee.

The committee has unsuccessfully sought document production from
Kelly and Christie's former campaign manager, Bill Stepien, who
may have been involved in discussions about the closures after
they occurred.

Ms. Kelly and Mr. Stepien are actively seeking immunity from the
Legislature's committee which, if granted, could lead to having
them declared immune from any criminal prosecution.

A state court judge has upheld their right to invoke the Fifth
Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.

The committee has, however, received tens of thousands of
documents from other individuals from the Port Authority and the
administration, including documents from Mr. Wildstein.

Press reports have indicated that Mr. Wildstein has met with
federal prosecutors and may be seeking immunity from prosecution
in exchange for his cooperation with the investigation.
Rebekah Carmichael, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office,
says she cannot comment on an ongoing investigation.


NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Has Placed Illegal Calls, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated v. North American Bancard, LLC,
Case No. 5:14-cv-00022-FPS (N.D. W. Va., February 19, 2014)
alleges that in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, North American Bancard placed a computer-dialed
telemarketing call to Ms. Mey's cellular telephone, and placed a
telemarketing call to a number she had registered on the national
Do Not Call Registry.

Headquartered in Troy, Michigan, North American Bancard, LLC is a
merchant services provider and is a registered independent sales
organization of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          Jonathan Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
                  jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          125 Summer St., Suite 1030
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, Massachusetts 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


NUCOR CORP: Still Faces Antitrust Lawsuit by Steel Purchasers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation continues to face antitrust class-action
complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Nucor has been named, along with other major steel producers, as
a co-defendant in several related antitrust class-action
complaints filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel
purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The majority of these complaints were filed
in September and October of 2008, with two additional complaints
being filed in July and December of 2010. Two of these complaints
have been voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending. The
plaintiffs allege that from April 1, 2005 through December 31,
2007, eight steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in
anticompetitive activities with respect to the production and
sale of steel. The plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief.
Although the company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit and will vigorously defend against them, the company cannot
at this time predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate
the range of Nucor's potential exposure.


PACKAGING CORPORATION: Still Faces Price-Fixing Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Packaging Corporation of America faces the suit Kleen Products
LLC v Packaging Corp. of America et al. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, according
to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

During 2010, PCA and eight other U.S. and Canadian containerboard
producers were named as defendants in five purported class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Sherman
Act. The lawsuits have been consolidated in a single complaint
under the caption Kleen Products LLC v Packaging Corp. of America
et al. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants
conspired to limit the supply of containerboard, and that the
purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially
increase prices of containerboard products during the period of
August 2005 to October 2010 (the time of filing of the
complaint). The complaint was filed as a class action suit on
behalf of all purchasers of containerboard products during such
period. The complaint seeks treble damages and costs, including
attorney's fees. The defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint
were denied by the court in April 2011. PCA believes the
allegations are without merit and is defending the lawsuit
vigorously. Due to discovery not being completed in the case and
the final outcome being dependent on many complex variables, the
amount of reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated
at this time.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces TCPA Violations MDL in Calif. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. faces the case In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, according
to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'
cellular telephones without their prior express consent.  On
December 21, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters
into one consolidated proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.  On November 14,
2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their amended
consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action").  The
Company has filed a motion to stay this litigation until such
time as the FCC has ruled on various petitions concerning the
TCPA.


PVR PARTNERS: Inks Agreement to Settle Lawsuits Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
PVR Partners, L.P. enters a Memorandum of Understanding to settle
lawsuits filed over its merger, according to the company's Feb.
28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Purported class action complaints have been filed against PVR,
Regency and PVR's board of directors challenging the merger, and
an unfavorable judgment or ruling in these lawsuits could prevent
or delay the consummation of the proposed merger and result in
substantial costs.

Eight purported class action lawsuits were initially filed
challenging the merger. Each lawsuit names as defendants PVR,
Regency, their respective general partners, individual members of
PVR's board of directors (the "Board") and RVP GP LLC, a Regency
subsidiary. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin
the proposed merger. If these lawsuits are not dismissed or
otherwise resolved, they could prevent and/or delay completion of
the merger and result in substantial costs to the company,
including any costs associated with the indemnification of
directors.

Two lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed and the currently
pending lawsuits challenging the merger are:

(i)   Naiditch v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al., No. 9015-VCL
      (Del. Ct. of Chancery)
(ii)  Monatt v. PVR Partners, LP, et al., No. 2013-10606 (PA --
      Common Pleas, Del. County)
(iii) Srour v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al., No. 2013-11015 (PA --
      Common Pleas, Del. County)
(iv)  Bushansky v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al., No. 2:13-cv-06829-
      HB (E.D. Pa.)
(v)   Hinnau v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al., No. 2:13-cv-07496-HB
      (E.D. Pa.)

On January 28, 2014, PVR, Regency, their respective general
partners, all the Board members of PVR and RVP GP LLC entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with plaintiffs in the
Monatt, Srour, Bushansky, Naiditch and Hinnau lawsuits (the
"Settled Lawsuits") detailing an agreement in principle to a
settlement of the Settled Lawsuits, which will be memorialized in
a separate settlement agreement. The settlement is subject to
customary conditions, including consummation of the merger,
completion of certain confirmatory discovery, class certification
and final approval by the Court of Common Pleas for Delaware
County, Pennsylvania. If the Court approves the settlement, the
Settled Lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice and all
defendants will be released from any and all claims relating to,
among other things, the merger and any disclosures made in
connection therewith. In exchange for that release, PVR and
Regency have provided additional disclosures requested by the
plaintiffs in the Settled Lawsuits related to, among other things
the merger and any disclosures made in connection therewith. The
settlement will not affect any provisions of the merger agreement
or the form or amount of consideration to be received by PVR
unitholders in the Merger.


RCS CAPITAL: Faces Lawsuit by Summit Shareholders Over Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
RCS Capital Corporation faces a consolidated lawsuit filed by
shareholders of Summit Financial Services Group, Inc.,
challenging the companies' merger, according to RCS Capital's
Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

Summit, its board of directors, the company's company and a
wholly owned subsidiary formed by the company's company in
connection with the Summit merger are named as defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits (now consolidated) filed by
alleged Summit shareholders on November 27, 2013 and December 12,
2013 in Palm Beach County, Florida challenging the Summit merger.
These lawsuits allege, among other things, that: (i) each member
of Summit's board of directors breached his fiduciary duties to
Summit and its shareholders in authorizing the Summit merger;
(ii) the Summit merger does not maximize value to Summit
shareholders; and (iii) the defendants aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of
Summit's board of directors.  These shareholder lawsuits seek
class action certification and equitable relief, including an
injunction against consummation of the Summit merger on the
agreed-upon terms.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Files Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities
Litigation" have filed respective motions to dismiss a
consolidated amended complaint, according to the company's Feb.
28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain current and former executive
officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders,
filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in
the same court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013,
the court consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re
SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "Securities
Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On
July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
which asserts a variety of federal securities claims against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class
of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during the period
from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of
common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or traceable to its
initial public offering on or about April 12, 2011, and (c)
purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust II
(together with the Mississippian Trust I, the "Mississippian
Trusts") in or traceable to its initial public offering on or
about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that
the Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants,
are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and
omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects,
including oil and natural gas reserves, the Company's capital
expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by companies
allegedly affiliated with the Company's former Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO") Tom Ward. The defendants have filed respective
motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which are
pending before the court.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Dismissal, Venue Transfer Sought in "Hart" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in a suit by current and former employees alleging
SandRidge Energy, Inc. failed to properly calculate overtime pay,
filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Transfer Venue,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 15, 2013, James Hart and fifteen other named plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge
Energy, Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge E&P,
SandRidge Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc. In their
amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed
to properly calculate overtime pay for the plaintiffs and for
other similarly situated current and former employees. The
plaintiffs further allege that the defendants required the
plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former
employees to engage in work-related activities without pay. The
plaintiffs assert claims against the defendants for (i)
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (ii) violations of
the Kansas Wage Payment Act, (iii) breach of contract, and (iv)
fraud, and seek to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay,
liquidated damages, statutory penalties, economic damages,
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
both pre- and post-judgment interest.

On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to Class
and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October 11,
2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to
Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma. All of these motions are pending
before the court.


SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Labor Suit Accord Wins Prelim. Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Stanislaus County Superior Court granted preliminary approval
to the settlement of the suit Vega v. Sensient Dehydrated Flavors
LLC, according to Sensient Technologies Corporation's Feb. 28,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 3, 2013, Thomas Vega, a now former employee, filed
(but did not serve) a Class Action Complaint in San Francisco
County Superior Court against Sensient Dehydrated Flavors LLC.
On February 11, 2013, Vega filed and served a First Amended
Complaint ("Complaint") against the Company and a Company
supervisor. Vega alleges that the Company failed to provide
alleged class members with meal periods, compensation for the
alleged absence of meal periods, and accurate wage statements, in
violation of the California labor code. The alleged class
includes all employees paid on an hourly basis and forklift
operators. The Complaint seeks damages, back wages, injunctive
relief, penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees for the members
of the alleged class. The Complaint alleges that the total
damages and costs "do not exceed a[n] aggregate of
$4,999,999.99."

The Complaint alleges two causes of action. The first cause of
action is for "Unfair Competition." The plaintiff's theory is
that the Company, by allegedly not complying with state wage and
hour laws, had an unfair competitive advantage against other
employers who were complying with those laws. The main strategic
reason that plaintiffs plead this cause of action is that the
statute of limitations is four years. The second cause of action
is for alleged substantive violations of the California labor
code provisions governing wages, hours, and meal periods.

On March 13, 2013, the parties filed a joint stipulation and
proposed order to remove the case from San Francisco County
Superior Court to Stanislaus County Superior Court.  On April 18,
2013, the Court granted the request.

On October 7, 2013, following a private mediation, the parties
signed a Memorandum of Understanding in which they agreed to
resolve the action for a maximum of $275,000 on a claims made
basis.  On December 5, 2013, the settlement was presented to the
Stanislaus County Superior Court. The Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement and scheduled a final approval hearing
for March 14, 2014.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Fla. Overdraft Litigation Now in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
The suit In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No.
2036, of which Synovus Financial Corp. is a defendant, is
currently in discovery, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and Columbus Bank
and Trust Company, were named as defendants in a putative multi-
state class action relating to the manner in which Synovus Bank
charges overdraft fees to customers. The case, Childs et al. v.
Columbus Bank and Trust et al., was filed in the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and asserts claims for
breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment
for alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of
Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with
its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards allegedly
resulting from the sequence used to post payments to the
plaintiffs' accounts. On October 25, 2010, the Childs case was
transferred to a multi-district proceeding in the Southern
District of Florida. In Re: Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation, MDL No. 2036. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on
October 21, 2011. The Synovus entities filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on November 22, 2011. On July 26, 2012, the
court denied the motion as to Synovus and Synovus Bank, but
granted the motion as to CB&T. Synovus and Synovus Bank filed
their answer to the amended complaint on September 24, 2012. The
case is currently in discovery.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Pact in Ga. Overdraft Fees Suit Has Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Gwinnett County State Court (State of Georgia) issued an
order preliminarily approving a proposed settlement by and among
Synovus Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank and the plaintiffs in
the Griner case Griner et. al. v. Synovus Bank, et. al.,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

Synovus Bank was also named as a defendant in a putative state-
wide class action in which the plaintiffs allege that overdraft
fees charged to customers constitute interest and, as such, are
usurious under Georgia law. The case, Griner et. al. v. Synovus
Bank, et. al. was filed in Gwinnett County State Court (State of
Georgia) on July 30, 2010, and asserts claims for usury,
conversion and money had and received for alleged injuries
suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's
assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit
and automated-teller machine cards used to access customer
accounts. Plaintiffs contend that such overdraft charges
constitute interest and are therefore subject to Georgia usury
laws.

Synovus Bank contends that such overdraft charges constitute non-
interest fees and charges under both federal and Georgia law and
are otherwise exempt from Georgia usury limits. On September 1,
2010, Synovus Bank removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On
July 22, 2011, the federal court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the Gwinnett County
State Court. Synovus Bank subsequently filed a motion to dismiss.

On February 22, 2012, the state court entered an order denying
the motion to dismiss. On March 1, 2012, the state court signed
and entered a certificate of immediate review thereby permitting
Synovus Bank to petition the Georgia Court of Appeals for a
discretionary appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss. On
March 12, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its application for
interlocutory appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals. On April
3, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals granted Synovus Bank's
application for interlocutory appeal of the state court's order
denying Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2012,
Synovus Bank filed its notice of appeal. Oral arguments were
heard in the case on September 19, 2012.

On March 28, 2013, the Georgia Court of Appeals entered an order
affirming the denial of Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss and
remanding the case back to the State Court of Gwinnett County for
further proceedings. On April 8, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a
motion requesting that the Court of Appeals reconsider its March
28, 2013 order. On April 11, 2013, the Court of Appeals entered
an order denying Synovus Bank's motion for reconsideration.  On
April 19, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a notice of its intent to
petition the Supreme Court of Georgia for a writ of certiorari.

On May 1, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court of Georgia.  On October 7,
2013, the Supreme Court of Georgia accepted certiorari and
vacated the March 28, 2013 order of the Georgia Court of Appeals
instanter with direction that the Court of Appeals remand the
case to the trial court for further consideration in light of the
effect, if any, of the July 3, 2013 Declaratory Order issued by
the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance, which declares
that to provide parity with national banks, overdraft fees
imposed by state-chartered banks in connection with deposit
accounts are not subject to Georgia's usury laws. The trial court
held a hearing for consideration of this issue on November 21,
2013, and a decision is pending.

On February 3, 2014, the Gwinnett County State Court (State of
Georgia) issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement (the "Griner Settlement") by and among Synovus
Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank (collectively referred to herein
as "Synovus"), and the plaintiffs in the Griner case. Under the
terms of the Griner Settlement, Synovus has agreed to (1)
establish a fund to pay eligible class member claims and (2) pay
an agreed-upon amount of fees to counsel for the plaintiffs in
the Griner Overdraft Litigation. In exchange, each purported
class member in the Overdraft Litigation will give Synovus a full
and final general release of all claims alleged or that could be
alleged in the Overdraft Litigation.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Settles Securities Action in Ga. for $11.8MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. reached a $11.8 million settlement in a
securities lawsuit pending in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File No. 1:09-CV-
1811), according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees'
Retirement System filed suit against Synovus, and certain of
Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1:09-CV-1811) (the "Securities Class Action"); and on June
11, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central
and Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension
Fund, filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and the
named individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in
violation of the federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiffs'
allegations are based on purported exposure to Synovus' lending
relationship with the Sea Island Company and the impact of such
alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition. Lead Plaintiffs
in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified
amount. On May 19, 2011, the Court ruled that the amended
complaint failed to satisfy the mandatory pleading requirements
of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The Court also
ruled that Lead Plaintiffs would be allowed the opportunity to
submit a further amended complaint. Lead Plaintiffs served their
second amended complaint on June 27, 2011. Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss that complaint on July 27, 2011. On March 22,
2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part that Motion to
Dismiss.

On April 19, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion requesting that
the Court reconsider its March 22, 2012 order. On September 26,
2012, the Court issued a written order denying the Motion for
Reconsideration. Defendants filed their answer to the second
amended complaint on May 21, 2012. On March 7, 2013, the Court
granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On May
23, 2013, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted Defendants
permission to appeal the District Court's certification of the
class. On October 4, 2013, the Lead Plaintiffs and the Defendants
reached a settlement-in-principle to settle the Securities Class
Action. Under the settlement-in-principle, the Defendants shall
cause to be paid $11.8 million (the "Securities Class Action
Settlement Payment") in exchange for broad releases, dismissal
with prejudice of the Securities Class Action and other material
and customary terms and conditions.


TARGET CORP: Faces Suit in Minnesota Related to 2013 Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Federal Savings of Lorain, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No.
0:14-cv-00462-PAM-JJK (D. Minn., February 19, 2014) arises from
the data breach at Target stores in late 2013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Zagrans, Esq.
          ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC
          6480 Rockside Woods Blvd. South, Suite 180
          Cleveland, Ohio 44131
          Telephone: (216) 771-1000
          Facsimile: (866) 261-2008
          E-mail: eric@zagrans.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael A. Ponto, Esq.
          Wendy J. Wildung, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 S 7th St., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com
                  wendy.wildung@faegrebd.com


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Court Approves $5MM Settlement in Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Massachusetts
approved a $5 million settlement reached in a suit filed by Jenna
Crenshaw, Andrew Brickley, et al. against Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
and subsidiaries, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On January 19, 2011, a Massachusetts putative class action was
filed styled Jenna Crenshaw, Andrew Brickley, et al, and all
others similarly situated v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., Texas
Roadhouse Holdings LLC, Texas Roadhouse of Everett, LLC and Texas
Roadhouse Management Corp., d/b/a Texas Roadhouse. The complaint
was filed in the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts. The complaint alleged a failure to comply with
Massachusetts wage laws specifically that the company improperly
shared pooled tips with ineligible employees. On September 5,
2012, the court approved a Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement")
between the parties and dismissed the complaint. Under the
Agreement, the company agreed to pay $5.0 million, which includes
payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, payment of expenses
to administer the settlement, and individual payments to resolve
the claims of servers employed in Massachusetts restaurants from
January 18, 2005 through September 5, 2012, the date of final
court approval. As a result of the Agreement, as previously
reported, the company recorded a $5.0 million charge in the first
quarter of 2012 which is included in general and administrative
expenses in the company's consolidated statements of income and
comprehensive income.


UNITED BANCORP: Faces Suit in Mich. Over Old National Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
United Bancorp Inc. faces a suit over its proposed merger with
Old National in the Circuit Court for Washtenaw County, Michigan,
Business Division, according to United's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On or about January 17, 2014, a putative class action complaint
was filed in the Circuit Court for Washtenaw County, Michigan,
Business Division, by an individual purporting to be a
shareholder of United.  The action is styled Parshall v. United
Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-39-CZ. The complaint alleges
that the directors of United breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's shareholders in connection with the proposed merger
between United and Old National by approving a transaction that
allegedly provides for inadequate consideration; that the merger
agreement includes allegedly preclusive deal protection
provisions; and that United and Old National allegedly aided and
abetted the United directors in breaching their duties to
United's shareholders. The complaint seeks, on behalf of the
putative class of all public shareholders of United, various
remedies, including enjoining the merger from being consummated
in accordance with its agreed-upon terms, rescission of the
transaction in the event that it is consummated, damages, and
costs and attorneys' and experts' fees relating to the lawsuit.
The Company intends to vigorously contest this action.


UNITED PARCEL: Still Faces Claims by Franchisees Who Rebranded
--------------------------------------------------------------
The claims of a class of franchisees of United Parcel Service,
Inc. who did rebrand remain pending in California Superior Court,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

The company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state
and federal courts containing various class action allegations
under state wage-and-hour laws. At this time, the company does
not believe that any loss associated with these matters would
have a material adverse effect on the company's financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.

UPS and the company's subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are
defendants in a lawsuit in California Superior Court about the
rebranding of The UPS Store franchises.  In the Morgate case, the
plaintiffs are (1) 125 individual franchisees who did not rebrand
to The UPS Store and (2) a certified class of all franchisees who
did rebrand. With respect to the 125 individual franchisees
described in (1), the trial court entered judgment against a
bellwether individual plaintiff, which was affirmed in January
2012.  In March 2013, the company reached a settlement in
principle with the remaining individual plaintiffs who did not
rebrand.  The company believes this settlement will not have a
material adverse effect on the company's financial condition,
results of operations or liquidity.  The trial court granted the
company's motion for summary judgment against the certified class
described in (2), which was reversed in January 2012.  The
company has not reached a settlement with this class of
franchisees, and the claims of the class remain pending.


UNITED PARCEL: Still Faces Suit in Ontario Over Brokerage Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. is defending one outstanding case
over the disclosure of the existence and cost of its brokerage
services, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against
the company in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec
(2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure
concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided
by the company under applicable provincial consumer protection
legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions
under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class
action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed
by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British
Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in
our favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September
2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to the company and the
plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the
Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that
decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted
and the company is appealing that decision. The motion to
authorize the 2006 Quebec litigation as a class action was
dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there was no
appeal, which ended that case in the company's favor. The 2013
Quebec litigation also has been dismissed. The company denies all
liability and is vigorously defending the one outstanding case in
Ontario.


UNITED PARCEL: Objects to Denial of Motion to Junk Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. filed objections to the
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge in a suit alleging price-
fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding
services to the extent that they recommended denial its motion to
dismiss, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In
July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming
numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS
Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the
amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint in October 2010, which the company moved to dismiss. In
August 2012, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss
all claims relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with
leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in
November 2012. The company filed another motion to dismiss. On
September 20, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended to the Court
that UPS be dismissed from one of the claims in the Third Amended
Complaint, with prejudice, but recommended that UPS's motion to
dismiss with respect to other claims in the Third Amended
Complaint be denied. UPS and other defendants filed objections to
the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge to the extent they
recommended denial of UPS's motion to dismiss. Those objections
are pending before the Court.


US AIRWAYS: Files Bid to Junk "Palkon" Merger Suit in Ariz. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the action Dennis Palkon, et al. v. US
Airways Group, Inc., et al., No. CV2013-051605 is pending before
the Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona, according to the
company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On March 1, 2013, a complaint captioned Plumbers & Steamfitters
Local Union No. 248 Pension Fund v. US Airways Group, Inc., et
al., No. CV2013-051605, was filed as a putative class action on
behalf of the stockholders of US Airways Group in the Superior
Court for Maricopa County, Arizona. On July 3, 2013, an amended
complaint, captioned Dennis Palkon, et al. v. US Airways Group,
Inc., et al., No. CV2013-051605, was filed with the same court.
The amended complaint names as defendants US Airways Group and
the members of its board of directors, and alleges that the
directors failed to maximize the value of US Airways Group in
connection with a Merger and that US Airways Group aided and
abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The relief sought in
the amended complaint includes an injunction against the Merger,
or rescission in the event it has been consummated. The court in
the above-referenced action denied the plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order that had sought to enjoin US Airways
Group's Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The above-referenced
action was stayed pending the outcome of the antitrust lawsuit
filed by the U.S. government and various states on August 13,
2013. This stay has now been lifted and a motion to dismiss this
action filed by US Airways Group is pending before the court. The
Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the allegations.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Del. High Court Affirms Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of In re:
Encore Energy Partners LP Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6347-
VCP, according to Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC's Feb. 28,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On April 5, 2011, Stephen Bushansky, a purported unitholder of
ENP, filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery on behalf of the unitholders of ENP. Another
purported unitholder of ENP, William Allen, filed a similar
action in the same court on April 14, 2011. The Bushansky and
Allen actions have been consolidated under the caption In re:
Encore Energy Partners LP Unitholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6347-
VCP (the "Delaware State Court Action"). On December 28, 2011,
those plaintiffs jointly filed their second amended consolidated
class action complaint naming as defendants ENP, Scott W. Smith,
Richard A. Robert, Douglas Pence, W. Timothy Hauss, John E.
Jackson, David C. Baggett, Martin G. White, and Vanguard. That
putative class action complaint alleged, among other things, that
defendants breached the partnership agreement by recommending a
transaction that was not fair and reasonable. Plaintiffs sought
compensatory damages. Vanguard filed a motion to dismiss this
lawsuit.

On August 31, 2012, the Chancery Court entered an order granting
Vanguard's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim and dismissing the Delaware State Court Action with
prejudice. On September 27, 2012, Mr. Allen filed a notice of
appeal of the dismissal of his lawsuit. On July 22, 2013, the
Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit.


VCA ANTECH: Still Faces "Duran" Suit by Veterinary Assistants
-------------------------------------------------------------
VCA Antech, Inc. continues to face a suit filed on behalf of
current and former veterinary assistants in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, according
to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2013.

On May 29, 2013, a former veterinary assistant at one of the
company's animal hospitals filed a purported class action lawsuit
against the company in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, titled Jorge Duran vs.
VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc., et. al. The lawsuit seeks to assert
claims on behalf of current and former veterinary assistants
employed by the company in California, and alleges, among other
allegations, that the company improperly failed to pay overtime
wages, improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods,
and engaged in unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks
damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including
attorneys' fees and costs.


VCA ANTECH: Still Faces Lawsuit by Courier Services Providers
-------------------------------------------------------------
VCA Antech, Inc. faces a suit filed on behalf of individuals who
were engaged by Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2013.

On July 12, 2013, an individual who provided courier services
with respect to the company's laboratory clients in California
filed a purported class action lawsuit against the company in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa
Clara - San Jose Branch, titled Carlos Lopez vs. Logistics
Delivery Solutions, LLC, Antech Diagnostics, Inc., et. al.
Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, a co-defendant in the lawsuit,
is a company with which Antech has contracted to provide courier
services in California. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on
behalf of individuals who were engaged by Logistics Delivery
Solutions, LLC to perform such courier services and alleges,
among other allegations, that Logistics Delivery Solutions, and
Antech Diagnostics improperly classified the plaintiffs as
independent contractors, improperly failed to pay overtime wages,
and improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods.
The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory penalties, and other relief,
including attorneys' fees and costs.


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante,
Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *